I was on the radio yesterday speaking of James of Jerusalem.
You can listen here via mp3 and here via Windows media.
There is wealth of stuff on the Issues Etc website ... both audio files and articles. Look around. It is rewarding.
Always fun to be on. Jeff Schwarz and Todd Wilken do a great job. They make the guest sound good.
7 comments:
Dr. Alms,
I listened to you on Issues, Etc. and you are unfortunately wrong when it comes to James being a half-brother of the Christ. Christ had no brothers and sisters biologically, only those step brothers from the previous marriage of St. Joseph. Even look at the icons of St. Joseph; he is always portrayed as an older man, way beyond the child producing years. The Lutheran Confessions also attest to the perpetual virginity of Mary as does Luther himself. Are you setting yourself above the Confessions which every Lutheran is REQUIRED to subscribe to because (quia) they are the true exposition of the regula fidei?
Anonymous:
Why does it bother you that Joseph and Mary had other children? I have never read anything definate on this subject. Many non-Christocentric beliefs had infiltrated into the ancient church which emphasized the perfection of Mary rather than Christ's Righteousness. If you are confident that the Lutheran Confessions bind pastors and members to believe in any perpetual virginity of Mary,be specific and insist the LCMS addressthe issue.
To fm483,
I have addressed this issue a number of times to the LCMS, but my calls were unheeded and ignored. I'm not emphasizing Mary's perfection, because as an Orthodox (as did early Lutheranism), I believe she is the great example, not, like the Roman Catholics, the great exception.
Your insistence that this is a non-Christocentric issue is very troubling because Mariology is Christology. Unless one has a firm grasp on what Mary was and her role, then the incarnation and hypostatic union and the plan of salvation all become adiaphora which one may choose to believe or not.
If you want the exact places in the Confessions so you can look they are Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration VIII, paragraph 24 and Apology XXI, paragarph 27.
You cannot be a confessional Lutheran and decide to only subscribe to the Confessions where justification is concerned. It's an all or nothing deal.
Apology XX1.27 does not address the issue. SD, VIII, 24 says only that the Virgin remained a virgin in chidlbirth. Thus the Virgin "birth" not simply the virgin "conception". It does not address the issue of her having children after Christ.
You missed SA, I, 4 where in the Latin translation the word semper virgo is used. The German lacks the phrase. Kolb/Wengert do not include it in the translation but only in a footnote.
I do not know of other confessional references. Seems seems that one can be a Confessional Lutheran and hold that Mary had other children since the Confessions do not address this issue.
I'm impressed that the LCMS, aping modern Episcopalianism, has now discovered *three* Jameses to commemorate--James the Greater (25 July), James the Less (1 May) and James of Jerusalem (23 October). No one had ever thought of that before. Even Rome, in its finest Vatican II innovations, still stuck with two Jameses.
I'm just curious--who is this recently discovered "third James"? Semms like he's akin (or a kin) to "third Isaiah."
:)
To be fair, many of us can count three Jameses, without resorting to any "apeing of Episcopalianism."
1. James Son of Zebedee
2. James, Son of Alphaeus
3. James of Jerusalem, Brother of our Lord
You may disagree, but I honestly think the text leads us to this conclusion. In the meantime, I'm sure, James of Jerusalem would urge us to maintain peace and unity and not fight over this.
Hi, John,
I am sincerely curious, without engaging in the sarcasm and abuse that sometimes accompanies these types of discussions, what you see as theologically at stake in the discussion of Mary ever Virgin.
I am speaking not of Mary's remaining a virgin at the birth of Christ but rather her perpetual virginity, that is, her not having born more children.
Not "the Bible says so" or "the church has always said this" I understand that. I am not interested in the evidence for or against but why it matters. What is at stake.
When we speak of Mary we are often really speaking of the church. So is the damage when we lose this, is it ecclesiological or is it the fact that we cut off oursleves from the Catholic patristic heritage? I ask sincerely.
Email offline if you wish.
Thanks.
Greg
Post a Comment