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.,

[american colleen]

No I did not criticize PM as he attributed the source - used the banner, in fact. All of us do that. Marmema did the same in several of her posts, as did I. We named the source and/or linked it.

There is a huge difference when you cut and paste, do not link or name the source you are using and pass it off as your own writing. Many, many of the poster's (who I criticized) posts that I have read are obviously not his own words (I think after a while we know how one another writes) so I put half dozen or so words in quotes and do a google search. Never fails, I find someone else wrote what he posted. I just think it is sad because it almost seems that the person doesn't trust themselves to be able to explain what they believe.

I don't want to get into a pissing match over this stuff, so I have deliberately not pinged anyone else. Do a search... And, the person I criticized was very gratious. I meant nothing personal, but coming on a thread and not even bothering to offer a theological opinion on the subject and doing a hit and run is crummy. And then look what happened with that poster and another poster. Stupid.

[FormerLib]

Well said!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Now, look what would happen had the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel writers to apply monogene to describe Jesus as Mary's only child. The specialness of the relationship between God the Son and God the Father would be muddied. Indeed, on another thread right now, a Calvinist (God bless him) is pointing out an early Mormon belief of God the Son at some point being "born" to God the Father. Now, imagine how much stronger the Mormon heresy in this regard would be if the Holy Spirit had decided to use monogene to also describe the relationship between Mary and Jesus. Monogene is used in the New Testament several times to describe an only child, but it is reserved by John, when he references Jesus, for the special case of the relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity.

---

Well, bind me to a stake and let the Jesuits burn my corpse...

Holy Trinitarian Relevancy, Batman, it's an actually cogent Romanist Argument.

Every other Romanist Argument I've ever encountered seems intent upon wiggling through a "linguistic loophole" which might, at the extreme borders of possibility, PERMIT an equivalence between PROTOTOKON ("first-born") and MONOGENE ("Only-Born")... like a Defense Lawyer who knows his client is guilty, he's just trying to get him off on a Legal Technicality (an example I may use again, but I thought your Post deserved first consideration).

You're actually arguing that, in this particular Case, PROTOTOKON might be preferable for Trinitarian (i.e., Anti-Mormon, Anti-Arian) Theology.

As you already said, am I going to agree with you? NO, OF COURSE NOT. "First-Born" is still the normative and organic interpretation of prototokon, which does not mean "Only-Born".

And as detailed in my #160-161, I have offered at least four Principal Arguments, each of which must be independently overthrown. And I think you must admit my reservation of the fact that, in terms of positive evidence, you have not overthrown ANY of my arguments.

But in terms of answering My Arguments -- that is, not disproving (which you have not done), but in terms of offering a Plausible Alternative (which I will graciously admit that you have) -- you have answered, if not overthrown, the "PROTOTOKON" vs. "MONOGENE" disputation.

PROTOTOKON really is NOT the appropriate Greek terminology for an "Only Son"; but in this particular case, you've undertaken to actually justify the possible rationale for the Roman Claim.

And I'll give credit where it is due. Rather than basically admit "linguistic Guilt" and attempt to get the Roman Case off on a Legal Loophole, Rather than attempt to exculpate the PROTOTOKON on a mere Linguistic Technicality (which is, IMHO, the usual Roman Argument), you're attempting to provide an actual Alibi for your Client as to *why* Prototokon might be preferable to Monogene in this unique case.

So have you overthrown my first Argument (that is, Disproved it?) No, you have not. You have merely answered it (that is, provided a Plausible Alternative).

But I gotta at least respect that. As Mr. Madrid said, an "A for Effort" -- AlguyA... you've gotta fine Linguistic Counter-Argument there on the "first-born" vs. "only-born" matter, and never let it be said that I won't admit a good Argument. (After all, if I could knock it down off the top of my head... I would).

All that said -- you've still got at least three more Principal Arguments to go (see #160 and #161).

Bon Mot, AlguyA.

Best, OP

[MarMema]

So don't think that finding one trivial thing in which the Orthodox church agrees with the RC church is going to work as a divisional tactic.

To assist you in your confusion, I have here posted what I actually said. I did not say that the Theotokos was trivial. I said that one "thing in which the Orthodox church agrees with the RC church" was trivial.

[MarMema]

In a post you made yesterday you used some link that I clicked on and found that some of the Orthodox Patriarch's actually request meetings with the popes. In fact, I was surprised that one of the Orthodox clergy on that site had a name beginning with "Pope"...

I checked all of my posts for the day you specified and am unable to find any link I posted as you describe here. None of our Orthodox clergy have ever used the title of "pope". It is my understanding that the word originated from the Italians, so I am fairly certain that you are confused here.
Please be kind enough to clear this up for me, in the interests of accuracy and to avoid slander of my church.

[Wrigley]

I disaree ctd. There is that pesky belief that Mary was without sin. That comes directly from this belief.

[Wrigley]

It'll come soon won't it? The sooner the better.

[american colleen]

I read all of the posts on this thread and clicked on the links that you provided. From one of the links I came up with "Pope Shenouda" who is a Coptic(?) Orthodox. Could have been that I was reading your link and followed other links from it, I can't remember.

I don't remember the name of the website and I didn't bookmark it, but the name stayed with me as it began with "Pope" and that surprised me.

I don't know how you could think I am trying to slander your Church? I wouldn't ever do that.

[american colleen]

Speaking only for myself I took the "one trivial thing" as the Theotokos because that is what we were talking about on those specific posts.

I am done here. The peace of Christ be with you.

[connectthedots]

There is that pesky belief that Mary was without sin. That comes directly from this belief

I find no Biblical basis for the notion that Mary was without sin. Even if she was, that ceratainly is no reason to believe she was a perpetual virgin.

[malakhi]

None of our Orthodox clergy have ever used the title of "pope".

She may be a little confused. The head of the Coptic church is called "Pope", but the Coptic church is a Monothelete church, and is not in communion with the Orthodox churches.

[malakhi]

Monothelite.

[malakhi]

Or is it Monophysite? I can never keep those two straight.

[malakhi]

The Oriental Orthodox churches (including the Coptic church among others) did not accept the council of Chalcedon, and have been out of communion with the Roman church and the Eastern/Greek/Byzantine Orthodox churches since 451 C.E.

[TexConfederate1861]

I am sorry, but though I disagree with the RC's on many points, there is just too much written evidence, both in the writings of the early Church Fathers, and in writings that were not added to the Canon of Scripture, but were approved for teaching and historical purposes, that state that Mary remained a virgin until her death.

Read the "Gospel of Thomas"....one source.

[SoothingDave]

The head of the Coptic church is called "Pope", but the Coptic church is a Monothelete church, and is not in communion with the Orthodox churches.

I know I've seen references to "the Pope of Rome" which were not needlessly redundant.

SD

[LiteKeeper]

Read the "Gospel of Thomas"....one source.

Sorry, gospel of Thomas is not Scripture. I give it no weight.

[MarMema]

Well just for the record keeping you are so fond of, let's remember that you were incorrect about what I said because you ignored the prepositional phrase following the verb, you failed to provide proof of a mysterious link I am unable to find, and then you announced you are leaving the thread.

So in the future, keep your snide comments about my failures to document things with absolute proof to yourself, or practise what you preach. Thanks.

[SoothingDave]

Google searches for "Pope of Antioch" or "Pope of Constantinople" do not return empty.

SD

[MarMema]

So next time before you post try reading them.

Pope antioch