The Protestant Reformers on the Virgin Mary

In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians:

It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

Martin Luther had the belief of Mary's Immaculate Conception, Luther's words follow:

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" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

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. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

". . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her." (Ref: Wm. J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116:)

"In Luther's Explanation of the Magnificat in 1521, he begins and ends with an invocation to Mary, which Wright feels compelled to call 'surprising'". (David F. Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspecive, London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, p. 178, Cited from Faith & Reason, Spring 1994, p. 6.)

In 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Other Reformers on Mary's Perpetual Virginity John Calvin

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5} John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

I have read the entire Catholic catechism, and while I don't object to any of it, I also feel no personal need for much of it. Maybe others, with different sorts of minds than mine, need that, but I feel that the Apostle's creed is a clear enough statement of belief for me. With that, my prayers, the bible, and the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit in my life, I am content. I read the bible daily (I'm just about to finish my second trip through the whole thing) but don't pretend to understand much of it, or to understand the significance of much of the rest. I do it as a discipline, because I do believe that if left to our own devices, we will unconsciously read only the parts we like and ignore the parts we don't, which is how I believe people go wrong and end up creating a God more to their liking than the God that exists. Once again, however, I figure if there's something in it I need to understand, God will clarify it for me. I guess I'm just simple-minded.

And, I don't try to read the bible with an open mind, I try to read it with an empty mind-- to understand what is truly there, and not to impose upon it my own preferences. God is who He is, and He has revealed Himself in history and scripture. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."

The kernel of Catholic ponderings on the Mother of God is rooted in Luke Chapter 1. Besides, although the original deposit of faith closed with the death of the last apostle, the Holy Spirit never has ceased to give the Church a deeper understanding of the Sacred Mysteries found in the pages of Scripture.

I also feel no personal need for much of it.

Christianity is all about meeting your personal needs according to your own personal tastes. Really, it is all about you. Keep shopping around till you find exactly what *you* want. /s

But when you figure out that Church is about serving and worshipping God, then send me a note.

-A8

If you accept the references to Jesus' brothers, you really have to do a lot of extrascriptural bending and spinning to make her a perpetual virgin.

First, show us where in Scripture it is documented that other children, i.e. brothers and sisters of Jesus, were born of the Virgin Mary.

Second, show us where in Scripture the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is specified.

Your questions have been argued by people with far higher scriptural pay-grades than mine, for a lot of centuries. So what I am about to reply in response is nothing, if not insignificant. Can we at least agree on that?

I personally can't document #2, sola scriptura. Others around here seem to be comfortable arguing the point. But I do accept it.

If I don't, I have to determine who is right regarding many extra-scriptural pronouncements. That would give me a colossal headache. (Case in point, do you accept every point that every Pope has claimed as from God? I am assuming you are Catholic.) So I do rely on Scripture alone as my guide. (I will admit, there are so many interpretations of scripture floating around that that in itself is a slippery slope.)

As to point one, while there may be no evidence that Jesus' brothers (and sisters?) were born of Mary, you cannot show me scriptural evidence they were not. The fact that Jesus' family is referenced in Scripture seems to me to be inclusive.

I am not a Catholic, so I do not necessarily accept the Catholic interpretation of God's Word nor its doctrines. But I would never engage in Catholic bashing.

Case in point, do you accept every point that every Pope has claimed as from God?

At least those very few declared as infallible teachings on faith and morals because I believe the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

As to point one, while there may be no evidence that Jesus' brothers (and sisters?) were born of Mary, you cannot show me scriptural evidence they were not.

So as far as point one, to declare Mary gave birth to additional children cannot be determined conclusively one way or the other from Scripture alone. To claim that she did is extra-scriptural.

I personally can't document #2, sola scriptura. Others around here seem to be comfortable arguing the point. But I do accept it.

If I don't, I have to determine who is right regarding many extra-scriptural pronouncements.

Regarding point 2, Scripture does not declare Sola Scriptura as doctrine, and since you believe in it but can't document it, you've determined that someone was right regarding this extra-scriptural pronouncement.

Non-Catholics accept a number of non-Scriptural teachings as doctrine and it always amuses me when they criticize Catholics for doing the same (note that I am not saying you personally are criticizing Catholics).

I have too much respect for the opinions of any Christian than to engage in arguments that can not end, without the subjugation of another.

I don't yeild on my points, nor would I demand that you yeild on yours.

On this I won't yeild...my salvation is dependant solely on the sacrifice of Our Saviour.

On that I hope we can agree.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.