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.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

The bible was not written in a vacuum -- without context, there is little understanding to be gained.

Many of the old testament laws (prohibitions on certain types of food, rules about defecating in/outside the campsite etc) relate to health issues that would not have been understood at the time of their enactment.

Get back to me on whether you think giving birth is a sin, or if God was preventing after-birth infection.

[MWS]

They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill.

Grace is that salve that makes damaged souls whole despite the weakness of the flesh. Why would one which is already whole need that which has the sole purpose of healing?

Luke 1:28 appears to be referring to “grace” as in terms of “favor”, such as when a king “graces” you with his presence. Gabriel’s announcement has less to do with her and her status as the sole sinless human being on earth prior to that point and more to do with the fact that she has been favored with the honor of being the Theotokos, should she choose to accept it.

This in itself is the highest honor that can be bestowed upon any of God’s creatures and it is of a greater dignity than even immaculate conception or even living a life without sin — she was “graced” with the honor of carrying the Lord of all Creation in her belly. On account of this alone ought all generations call her blessed.

The dignity of that honor and the magnanimity of God in granting it is actually lessened by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception rather than strengthened — if Mary was entirely without sin, even from conception, then she somehow “deserved” that honor (at least above all other creatures) and God was simply giving her something more due to her than to the rest of us. The alternative, however, is a God who bestows even the highest honor possible in all creation to those who certainly don’t deserve it, even to sinners whose due by their natures is His wrath. The honor involved in the latter scenario is infinitely greater than that reflected in the former. The pauper’s daughter who is made the prince’s bride is honored far more greatly than the daughter of the duke.

Yes, God could have created Mary sinless but mercy and glory most certainly could not be considered greater than it would be under the alternative, which would be far more reflective of an infinitely merciful and glorious God. Nor did God “require” a vessel spotless from her creation to be mother of His Son — a God who can make one sinless from creation can most certainly destroy sin completely and utterly while we are in the midst of our lives. That is, after all, the very thing that we as Christians believe God to do for us.

As for the infinite honor granted to Mary in bearing the God Himself, how far does this honor go? The same gospel author, eleven chapters later (in Luke 11:27 - 28), goes on to mention an incident where this very matter was brought up. “And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck.”

Our Lord’s response? “Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.”

[metmom]

There is always need for grace. Man is saved through grace ALONE. Mary was sinless, yet she too was saved by grace alone through the passion of Christ, same as the rest of us.

Then as a human, she sinned. Scripture is clear on that.

[metmom]

Excellent points.

Thank you!

[GeronL]

bump

[metmom]

Ooops, copy and paste failed.

Mary was human, and all humans require the saving grace of God. Salvation is gained through grace alone.

Then as a human, she sinned. Scripture is clear on that.

[Elsie]

<> Get back to me on whether you think giving birth is a sin, or if God was preventing after-birth infection.

No thanks.

What I 'think' is only a distraction; as well as what GOD was 'preventing'.

I can PLAINLY read what the text SAYS, and my thoughts would be mere speculation.

[Elsie]

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Jesus was also a human.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

What is says, at absolute face value, is that you need to make atonement for giving birth. Does that make sense, or is some context in order?

[metmom]

Sin entered the world through the man. The sin nature is transmitted through the father.

Mary had a human father, therefore she had a sin nature.

Sine the sin nature doesn’t come through the mother, Jesus’ humanity was not a problem.

Sheesh, anything but admit that Mary was a normal human being, just like the rest of us.

[BlueDragon]

Seeing "Mighty Fortress is our God" juxtaposed as reply to yet another repetitious posting of the Magnificat (as those scripture passages can be known) set me off for copy of the musical score, then had me considering the elements...in multitudinous ways.

Drawing also upon my own past as a fisherman, combining marine and also "fishy" parts, in light of tensions between differing camps, historical elements of those, along with some allusion to scripture too, etc., as those came to mind, I made attempt to work those varied things into a [possibly cheesy?] poem.

Why I did so, I don't rightly know (other than brain exercise, image combination and flows, and so on) for poetry writing has not been much of an interest to me --- and reading others stuff (so-called poetry) even less, for the most part.

So you can scroll past this, it's ok. all is forgiven beforehand. For setting, some scripture passages, first;

Psalm 107 (Authorized KJV)
23 They that go down to the sea in ships,
that do business in great waters;
24 these see the works of the Lord,
and his wonders in the deep.
25 For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind,
which lifteth up the waves thereof.
26 They mount up to the heaven,
they go down again to the depths:
their soul is melted because of trouble.
27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man,
and are at their wits’ end.
28 Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble,
and he bringeth them out of their distresses.

Matthew 23
47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that
was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48 which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat
down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.

tentative titles

Song of the Sea Beggars or
Ode to (Pacific Coast, dover) Soul Fishing

Of those things said of sailors
uncalled be they not late for -
dinner payday speaking bold
why then refugee called "pirate" --
smuggle Christmas?
he was ordered and told !

Fortress to fo'c'sle,
'Cross port rang call
The Master has spoken;
Beggars need not to plunder
the Mary's Rose, for they be ours...

This fleet that treasure, the builder layed keels
to bear in holds 'neath hatch covers
...is it there?
be sure, hulls all well settled
for at the dawn, all wills sail

You there! cried chief bos'n Friend
John, sailor clear that raffle
mind straight that line of coil, this voyage
...tattered pennants cut plunge away, overboard
On floodmost tide, ship's bones, be borne, and be gone...
from this

Stand ready, watch
look listen hear that Wind?
that whispered voice
shouts as ancient storm, yet on, brings
high heaving rollers from distant
land, calls strangers, Home.

Too late now... are you seasick?
Yeah, there's a touch of that goin' 'round
[smiles] I know what you mean
but ease that sheet there would you
please now, now snub it, and that daydream
steady, brace feet square
these airs that here be rising dig
toes into deckboards, this brig
be...out, offshore's bound

...waking mid-ocean,
"how'd we get here, where we going?"
a sleepy lad asks,
but who's time to tell him, all sent
here regardless, must drink deep of the flasks
'bout little ships set floating, set off from the shore
on an Ocean Master's
plans, aims, and bidding,
an ocean's harvest for Him to store

...cabin-steward, the helm it's your turn,
winds tho' now be light,
can surprise sudden churn
surely you know?
That star, steer there that's the One
don't let 'er be fallin' off now...
whether buried lee rail, or no

the grounds' not your home
boy, shut that whine
We'll be there before All Who Knows it
sorts the good fish
from the dogsharks, skate rays
starfish, and the slime

BlueDragon, Nov. 22, 2013

[Elsie]

Does that make sense, or is some context in order?

No.

Go forth and MULTIPLY!!

BTW; you'll be UNCLEAN!!! if you do...

[Elsie]

What is says, at absolute face value, is that you need to make atonement for giving birth.

Does the RED TEXT somehow not register?

 Then he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female.
'But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'"

[Elsie]

Get back to me on whether you think giving birth is a sin, or if God was preventing after-birth infection.

I have a real hard time, figuring out how giving a priest a couple of birds, prevents infection.

But HEY!; that's just me...

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I was referring to how women were supposed to stay aside during their menstrual cycle and after childbirth. In Leviticus 13 it states that anyone with a rash that MAY be a defilement such as leprosy must go before the priests.

The offering of doves was an atonement for the first transgression of Eve, a perpetual reminder of humanity's sinful nature.

[metmom]

The offering of doves was an atonement for the first transgression of Eve, a perpetual reminder of humanity's sinful nature.

Then either Mary was sinful, as a human being, or she wasn't human.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Her sin was prevented by God at conception. Had God not justified her in an extraordinary way, She would indeed have been as sinful as anyone. Mary offered the atonement in accordance with the law.

Jesus was without sin, but went to be baptized.