Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM ^ | Dave Armstrong compiles quotes from Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al.,

[.45MAN]

That was wonderful and insightful. New blood in Patrick Madrid will bring up the level of blood pressure, but it will be for the better.

[.45MAN]

Your going to need more than a pot!!! Call the red cross canteen truck.... Ha!

[dansangel]

Welcome to Free Republic. I do not envy your task here. Personally, I have stopped posting to the Catholic threads (except for this one time) due to the horrendous amount of vicious, ugly flaming that goes on.

May God Bless you abundantly for all of your work. We need more like you to fight the good fight.

.45MAN - Thanks for the ping.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I agree. And as I pointed out in an earlier post on the "Fr. Ron Tacelli Article" thread, Scripture is silent on this issue, in terms of an explicit statement saying either that Mary had other children besides Christ or that she did not have other children besides Christ.

Scripture being silent on the point actually speaks very loudly about the importance of the point to God.

Becky

[Revelation 911]

Grant Swank alert - run a google campers

[Desdemona]

With all due respect, Mr. Madrid, the protestant movement was a revolt, not reform. No one who claims protestantism wants to admit it, but the motivations were not doctrinal or theological, but completely human.

[NYer]

May God Bless you abundantly for all of your work. We need more like you to fight the good fight.

He's a brave one, indeed, to show up on Free Republic without the mantle of a freeper disguise.

Mr. Madrid hosts an informative blog! When you get a chance, you may want to drop in and leave a comment. I believe you will find the Dwight Longenecker articles to be astute commentaries on the times in which we live.

EnvoyMagazine

[dansangel]

Thank you. You have mail.

[Patrick Madrid]

"Welcome to Free Republic."

Thanks, Dansangel. Seems like a friendly place.

[Patrick Madrid]

Becky said, "Scripture being silent on the point actually speaks very loudly about the importance of the point to God."

Oh, I see. So using that logic you'd also be forced to assert the the absence of any explicit statements in Scripture (versus implicit evidences, and there are *plenty* of implicit evidences for Mary's perpetual virginity in Scripture) regarding the Trinity as One God in Three consubstantial, co-equal Persons, the two natures of Christ, and the canon of Scripture itself must mean that those issues aren't important to God.

Please. Surely you can see that just because the Bible doesn't contain a single explicit statement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union of Christ (there are plenty of implicit evidences for theme, yes, but nothing explicit -- just as with Mary's post-partun virginity) that does not mean that they are not important to God.

And don't forget, Becky, that the Bible is absolutely silent on the extent of the canon of the NT (the OT too, for that matter). That revelation is handed down in the Church through Sacred Tradition, entirely outside the pages of Scripture. If you don't believe me, crack open your Bible and try to locate where in the inspired books there is a list of which books belong in the NT. Yet I'm certain you would argue that the Bible itself is "important" to God. Right?

Another example of biblical silence on an important issue: The NT nowhere condemns slavery. Galatians 3:28 mentions that there is no distinction in God's eyes betweem slave or free, but neither there nor elswhere in the NT is there a *teaching* delivered on the subject of slavery. In fact, in some sections (e.g. Philemon) Scripture gives the appearance of tolerating it (cf. 1 Peter 2:18).

So, the fact that something as important as the teaching that slavery is wrong isn't mentioned explicity in Scripture (much less condemned) doesn't ipso facto disqualify that issue as being important or true.

Ditto for Mary's perpetual virginity.

There are numerous other examples I could use to demonstrate the fuzzy thinking and unbiblical character of Becky's comment, but I hope these couple of examples will suffice to make the point that her dismissal of this doctrine, quoted at the top of this post, is simply not cogent.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Then the Catholic Church will offend you, since she holds to a dogma reading: "Outside of the Catholic Church there is positively no salvation." (Lateran Council IV)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Scripture being silent on the point actually speaks very loudly about the importance of the point to God. p>Scripture says next to nothing about the Trinity or the Church as well. Are those also unimportant points?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I was thinking even more of King Henry of Navarre, who returned to Catholicism for that very reason.

[Revelation 911]

Matthew 12

Jesus' Mother and Brothers

46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[1]
48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.

Clearly - the reference in v46 is literal and the reference in v49 is figurative.

Important nuance to note - If the duality of Christ is accepted, they are 1/2 brothers and sisters, wholly human. To call them "brothers" and "sisters" in the whole sense is innaccurate.

IMO Mary was a human called by God to do great things, as was Moses & the Apostles etc... I'd suggest we're treading on Idol worship when we deify her obedience and love....something every Christian ought to be expressing -

[Patrick Madrid]

"I'd suggest we're treading on Idol worship when we deify her obedience and love....something every Christian ought to be expressing."

Agreed. And that's exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary and the saints, indeed any creature.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2113 says:

"Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, 'You cannot serve God and mammon.'[Mt 6:24 .] Many martyrs died for not adoring 'the Beast'[Cf. Rev 13-14.] refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.[Cf. Gal 5:20 ; Eph 5:5 .]"

I'm glad you agree with us, Rev!

[redhead]

"Unconvincing. That's just your fallible human opinion. there are many others who would disagree with you. Sorry, you score no points with that "argument.""

Touche'!

Welcome, Patrick! Love to see your name on FR's Catholic list.

[fishtank]

It's a good thing that I don't think of the major Reformers as little popes, otherwise I'd still be holding to the false teachings that they could not rid themselves of.

In particular, some Lutherans that I know have made ML a little pope, and they are more familiar with his books than they are of the Bible itself.

Roll over Beethoven, and tell old Luther the news!

[Revelation 911]

I'm glad you agree with us, Rev!

Rather, Im curious to hear your reconciliation of Matt 12 as it relates to perpetual virginity.

[conservonator]

It's a good thing that I don't think of the major Reformers as little popes, otherwise I'd still be holding to the false teachings that they could not rid themselves of.

The beauty of Protestantism; every man a pope...

[snerkel]

Good Morning Revelation 911. I ran a google and only found partial quotes similar to the few presented in the article. I can find no writings from the Protestant Fathers to support the claim they supported an ever-virgin Mary. You?