The problem is teaching something as true and factual when there's no definative statement supporting it. That's what is the problem for those who question her perpetual virginity.
Consensus doesn't make truth. If they're not sure, that's one thing. To declare it as true and fact when there's certainly plenty of evidence to the contrary, is irresponsible, bordering on deceptive.
metmom wrote:
“The problem is teaching something as true and factual when there’s no definative statement supporting it. That’s what is the problem for those who question her perpetual virginity. Consensus doesn’t make truth. If they’re not sure, that’s one thing. To declare it as true and fact when there’s certainly plenty of evidence to the contrary, is irresponsible, bordering on deceptive.”
Reading what you write here, I do not think we are very far apart. It is now more a matter of emphasis and application.
For the record, the Reformers left the matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity an open question or adiaphoron precisely because it could not be irrefutably proved from the Bible, even though the church fathers were quite united in believing it. They meant what they said. When Rome insists that this must be believed, Rome is openly called wrong, and yet without denying the historical truth that the church fathers so believed, and that they might very well have been right because they knew something we longer can lay our finger on. But one cannot bind someone’s conscience to that which is not sure and certain from the plain, clear testimony of God’s word. That is not our prerogative. God, who would have all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, left it that way. That alone should tell us how to deal with this matter.
If God chose not to make this clear either way, then that is our confession. It is unclear, therefore believe as you will so long as you believe rightly all that the Scriptures do teach about the Christ. This, as you are manifestly sensitive to, is one of Rome’s big problems. They insist on taking things that may or may not be true - and even build wholly ungrounded and doubtful (if not harmful!) doctrine on top of such things - and insist on pain of damnation, that one must believe them to be true. I will go you one better, this is not merely irresponsible and deceptive, it is the spirit of antichrist.
Sound scriptural, Christian doctrine glorifies Christ and the truth that has been revealed in and through Him.
A disinterested historian appr. 25 years old at the time James was martyred (62 A.D.) had this to say about the “perpetual virginity” of Mary,
“Josephus, Antiquities Book 20: chapter 9
1. CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.
1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:”
It has been argued that this was an addition/editorial comment of Eusebius in the 4th century, however Eusebius was the fawning historian of Constantine who wanted to consolidate the church with the political Rome so it would be counterproductive to alienate the early church fathers.