metmom wrote:
“Which all gets back to the original question of WHY Catholics are so obsessed with her perpetual virginity. Once prophecy was fulfilled, she didn’t need to remain a virgin and once Jesus began His ministry and all the miracles and raising from the dead, He didn’t need her virginity to prove who HE was.”
I have watched with dismay this ongoing argument about the perpetual virginity of Mary, one side defending it as if the very foundations of the one Holy Christian and Apostolic Church depended on it, the other side attacking it as if the Vatican and all its errant teaching could be brought down along with this doctrine.
The basic facts are these: the early church fathers both believed and were not silent about their belief that Mary was perpetually virgin, meaning that even after she gave birth to Jesus she remained a virgin. Whether one likes it or not, that is the historical record.
The position of the reformers, and here I will speak chiefly for Luther and the Lutherans, was that the Holy Scriptures did not settle the question one way or the other. In other words, there are good, scripturally based (and by this, I mean solely on the basis of the vocabulary and the grammar as employed at the time the words were written) arguments both ways, but that neither was conclusive. That being the case, the reformers, who almost unanimously accepted the judgment of the early church (for they had - and this is critically important! - no Scriptural proof that it was not so, and there was no conflict with any other scripturally revealed doctrine) in simple respect of their forefathers in the faith and their greater nearness to the events in question.
However, and this is a big however, they also knew that this matter must be left as an adiaphoron, that is, an indifferent matter. By definition this means that they take the position that Scripture alone does not and cannot settle this issue (and this is, of course, true of many things), therefore it cannot be taught as doctrine nor rejected as that which is contrary to doctrine. This judgment remains the standard among confessional (i.e., genuine) Lutherans, many of whom still today believe she was perpetually virgin and many of whom do not. In other words, we are the opposite of obsessed with this. We take the position that if God chose not to make this clear, then we bow to His judgment, and leave it alone.
At the same time it is recognized that through the centuries heretical assaults on the divinity/humanity of the one Christ have been made, indirectly, by those who would sow doubt about the virgin birth and the very possibility of Mary’s being and remaining virgin. So, for the Lutheran, the question becomes, “Why is any person obsessed with this matter when the Scriptures do not settle the question?” You see, we really are stuck on Sola Scriptura and at the same time retain great respect for those who have come before us, as God would have us do.
So, the bottom line is that the Catholic insistence that Mary’s perpetual virginity be taught as doctrine is suspect for the reason that it is for reasons other than simply to defend true, scriptural Christology. The Protestant insistence that Mary could not have remained virgin for various sensible sounding -sounding! - reasons is suspect for the reason that is puts human reasoning above the testimony of Holy Scripture, in effect replacing the supposed authority of the Roman tradition/magisterium with the supposed authority of individual human opinion, whether based on reason, experience, or simply emotional preference.
On the matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity, I freely admit that I do not know. And I am very familiar with the arguments both ways, both historically and textually.
One last matter, there is quite a difference in, let us say, believing Mary remained perpetually virgin and believing that she was without sin and thus - thus! - merited direct entrance into heaven (the assumption of Mary) without the necessity of death. The first is scripturally unverifiable, not in conflict with any other revealed doctrine, and certainly possible either way. The second is, in terms of Scripture, wholly without support or even implication, in conflict with direct scriptural testimony, and thus simply impossible to call Christian teaching. I insert this last paragraph just to illustrate the difference between what is truly an unverifiable, yet pious and essentially unharmful belief and one that is plainly at odds with God’s word and certainly harmful to faith.
Which all gets back to a very old and wise question, WHY is anyone so obsessed with Mary’s perpetual virginity either way? Let each examine carefully his/her reasoning and motivation.
{The Lord is called Mary's firstborn (Matt.1:25; Lk. 2:7), and the natural inference is that she had other children. The Gr. protokos is used only in Rom. 8:29; Col 1:15-18; Heb. 1:6; 11:28; 12:23; Rev. 1:5 of the first of many others. Had He been her only son, the word would have been monogenes, which occurs in Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; of human parentage of the "only son", "only daughter," and "only child"; and of the Lord Jesus as "the only begotten of the Father" (Jn. 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 Jn. 4:9).}
***********************************************************************{Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. page 67, NT, Col. 4, D.}
Where is the good, Scriptural teaching that Mary was always a virgin?
At the same time it is recognized that through the centuries heretical assaults on the divinity/humanity of the one Christ have been made, indirectly, by those who would sow doubt about the virgin birth and the very possibility of Mary’s being and remaining virgin.
There's a big difference between the virgin birth and the perpetual virginity of Mary.
The virgin birth was fulfillment of prophecy. It was necessary and had to happen. Her perpetual virginity is not.
Which all gets back to a very old and wise question, WHY is anyone so obsessed with Mary’s perpetual virginity either way?
It's a matter of truth. Scripture is truth and there are enough passages to support that she had other children. Teaching otherwise is a lie, no matter how many *church fathers* believed otherwise. If it's not part of the canon, of the infallible Word of God that was given us in Scripture, it's suspect, no matter how many people believe it and how long ago they decided on it.
Very good post. But why does our desire to maintain the record given us though the fathers of the Church albeit not from the scripture, an “obsession” that is “suspect”?