LUTHER 1527 The Arian Controversy down to the Council of Nicaea, 318-325.
LUTHER 1527
However, if we should judge the articles of our faith and the Scriptures according to our reason and our eyes, as Oecolampadius does here, then indeed every point in the Scriptures is in opposition to the other. For the text that Mary is a virgin and mother [Luke 1:27, 31] is opposed to the texts, “Be fruitful and multiply,” and “I will make for man a helper fit for him” [Gen. 1:28, 2:18]. If I should deny for that reason that she was a virgin, and exclaim, “The Scriptures are contradictory,” someone would fairly answer me, “Yes, for you and your reason they are contradictory; but how are they contradictory before God? Tell me that!” So I would be in the same position as Oecolampadius is here.
Again, that Christ is God is contrary to the text, “God created man” [Gen. 1:27]. Go on now and say, “He is not God, because divinity and humanity are more opposed to each other than heaven and earth; and the person, Christ, cannot be at the same time in the Godhead and in humanity.” Let your reason be that these texts are contradictory. Then someone will answer you, “Yes, you say so, and in your eyes they are contradictory, but show me that they are also contradictory in God’s sight!”
The Arian Controversy down to the Council of Nicaea, 318-325.
The controversies on this fundamental question agitated the Roman empire and the church of East and West for more than half a century, and gave occasion to the first two ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. At last the orthodox doctrine triumphed, and in 381 was brought into the form in which it is to this day substantially held in all orthodox churches.
The external history of the Arian controversy, of which we first sketch the main features, falls into three stages:
1. From the outbreak of the controversy to the temporary victory of orthodoxy at the council of Nicaea; a.d. 318–325.
2. The Arian and semi-Arian reaction, and its prevalence to the death of Constantius; a.d. 325–361.
3. The final victory, and the completion of the Nicene creed; to the council of Constantinople, a.d. 381.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Schaff Volume 3 NICENE AND POST-NICENE CHRISTIANTY A.D. 311-600
(Pages 618-619)
However, if we should judge the articles of our faith and the Scriptures according to our reason and our eyes, as Oecolampadius does here, then indeed every point in the Scriptures is in opposition to the other. For the text that Mary is a virgin and mother [Luke 1:27, 31] is opposed to the texts, “Be fruitful and multiply,” and “I will make for man a helper fit for him” [Gen. 1:28, 2:18]. If I should deny for that reason that she was a virgin, and exclaim, “The Scriptures are contradictory,” someone would fairly answer me, “Yes, for you and your reason they are contradictory; but how are they contradictory before God? Tell me that!” So I would be in the same position as Oecolampadius is here.
Again, that Christ is God is contrary to the text, “God created man” [Gen. 1:27]. Go on now and say, “He is not God, because divinity and humanity are more opposed to each other than heaven and earth; and the person, Christ, cannot be at the same time in the Godhead and in humanity.” Let your reason be that these texts are contradictory. Then someone will answer you, “Yes, you say so, and in your eyes they are contradictory, but show me that they are also contradictory in God’s sight!”
The Arian Controversy down to the Council of Nicaea, 318-325.
The controversies on this fundamental question agitated the Roman empire and the church of East and West for more than half a century, and gave occasion to the first two ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. At last the orthodox doctrine triumphed, and in 381 was brought into the form in which it is to this day substantially held in all orthodox churches.
The external history of the Arian controversy, of which we first sketch the main features, falls into three stages:
1. From the outbreak of the controversy to the temporary victory of orthodoxy at the council of Nicaea; a.d. 318–325.
2. The Arian and semi-Arian reaction, and its prevalence to the death of Constantius; a.d. 325–361.
3. The final victory, and the completion of the Nicene creed; to the council of Constantinople, a.d. 381.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Schaff Volume 3 NICENE AND POST-NICENE CHRISTIANTY A.D. 311-600
(Pages 618-619)
posted by Wartburg | Wednesday, June 07, 2006
2 Comments:
Sal,
GREAT Luther quote. Love that one! Do you think it is also referring to Mary's perpetual virginity?
Pastor Weedon Great to hear from you today. Please read the following. I have had this tucked away for awhile and probable, it looks like I found it on PERICOPE (I love reading what the Pastors have to say on this Lutheran sight);Please enjoy.
I do think that Dr. Luther's thinking sure does follow in the direction of your question.
By the way HAPPY 24th ANNIVERSARY.Who did say it ( Your June 6th POST)?
LOCI: Ezekiel 44:2 ; Isa 66:7; Is 7:14
---------------
{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.
ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
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 . . .
ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
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.
-----------------
Part I- Smalcad Articles
IV.
That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the
cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy and always
Virgin Mary. Afterwards He suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, rose
from
the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God, will come to judge
the
quick and the dead, etc., as the Creed of the Apostles, as well as that of St.
Athanasius, and the Catechism in common use for children, teach.
Concerning these articles there is no contention or dispute, since we on both
sides
confess them. Therefore it is not necessary now to treat further of them.
-------------
FORMULA OF CONCORD, SOLID DECLARATION,
ARTICLE VIII: PERSON OF CHRIST
Because of this personal union and communion of the divine and human natures in
Christ, we also believe, teach, and confess (in accord with our simple,
Christian
creed) that everything said of the majesty of Christ according to his humanity
at
the right hand of the almighty power of God and all that follows from it would
be
nothing and could not exist if this personal union and communion of the natures
in
the person of Christ were not in fact and in truth.
[Therefore], Mary, the most blessed Virgin, gave birth not to a mere, ordinary
human
being, but instead to a human being who is truly the Son of God and the Most
High,
as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty in his mother's womb,
in
that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore, she
remained truly the Mother of God and at the same time a virgin.
On this basis he also performed all his miracles, and he revealed his divine
nature
as he pleased, when and how he wanted to...in the state of his humiliation...
This
was true even in death, when he did not die merely as another human being but in
such a way that by and in his death he overcame sin, death, the devil, hell, and
eternal damnation which the human nature along would not have been able to do,
had
it not been united with the divine nature personally and had communion with it.
(paragraphs 23-25)
------------
... "the point is that the Semper Virgo was the universal belief of
all
Christians at the Reformation. Even John Calvin and Zwingli believed in it.
They
were not dictated in their beliefs by American evangelicalism, but by the Tradition
of
the Church which influenced greatly their interpretation of Scripture. You see ,
we
always interpret Scripture with presuppositions. In their case, it was
tradition. In
our case, it's often rationalism or pop religious culture. The bottom line is
the
analogy of faith. What does it change to God's plan of redemption. The semper
Virgo
is important at least in that it declares that Mary did not suffer pains of
child
birth (consequence of original sin), because her Son was sinless and came to
take
away the pains and death sin has brought upon us.
Got to run"...
Post a Comment
<< Home