Posted on 12/08/2006 8:12:09 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
Under no circumstances would I ever demean my brothers and sisters who are Catholics, but there is no evidence that Mary continued her life as a virgin.
True, there may be no evidence that she wasn't a lifelong virgin, with the exception of Scriptural references to Jesus' brothers. But that is a powerful exception. If you accept the references to Jesus' brothers, you really have to do a lot of extrascriptural bending and spinning to make her a perpetual virgin.
Bottom line for me, with no disrepect toward other opinions, Scripture rules. Luther's opinions are extra-Scriptural
No evidence. There is plenty of evidence dating from the Second Century. The ideas to the contrary were first proposed by the Gnostic heretics.
Oh ye of little faith.
I agree. I am Lutheran (Missourri Synod) and although Luther was a great figure in the Protestant Reformation and has his accolades, we are also very careful to note that Luther was not perfect, and not everything Luther said or did is beyond reproach. Where Luther's teachings agree with Scripture, we would agree with him; where they depart, we would remain with Scripture.
To simply throw Luther's quotes around where he was wrong on a subject and somehow use them to support an incorrect position, the original author should also use Luther's incorrect ideas and quotes later in his life about his own German countrymen and the Jews, who were both frustrating him in his later years. If the man was always right, let's use all his quotes, and not just cherry-pick the ones that further one's own incorrect views.
Luther wasn't infallible, and nobody but God is infallible. No person save Jesus Christ (God the Son, in the flesh) was infallible. Luther was wrong in his views on certain aspects of Mary. He was wrong on other things as well. We don't point them out to beat him up and savage him because of it, but I point it out because the original poster is using his incorrect quotes to further buttress his own incorrect viewpoint by saying even a Protestant believes what the Roman church teaches.
The Biblical canon is extra-scriptural. What came first the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles or the Bible?
The word "Trinity" is extra-scriptural, not to mention the catechetical formulae about who Jesus was. If Christ's divinity and humanity was as plain to understand as you perhaps take for granted, the Arian heresy would never have arisen, not to mention Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, etc.
If every man or woman is his or her own pope, chaos is the end result.
Are you not guilty of doing the same thing? Cherry-picking quotes to support your position? No one ever can claim to know who is wrong or right about Mary, and to claim otherwise is irresponsible. I did not read any reference to the Roman Catholic Church or that he was pushing any sort of agenda.
If Mary was held in such high regard by God, as the only person ever to bear His son, certainly we must hold her in the same regard. This is in the Holy Scripture. It is through Mary that Jesus came to this world by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the Will of God.
Please don't get so angry, or argumentative. In the end, there will be only one truth. We need to be supportive of other Christian faiths and not denegrate another. We get that enough from other sources. We are one body, with many different ideas.
Among other things, I was taught in a Missouri Synod school, with male teachers, no less (Reinhold Arkebauer, Luther Kollander, and Adolph Stahlecker...does that confirm my background?)
Thank you for posting those beautiful quotes about Our Lady.
BTTT!
On this we agree:
Mary was an exceptional woman, chosen by God to bear His Son.
To some degree, I agree that chaos reigns when there is no unifying authority which determines dogma.
Having said that, with my Missouri synod, Fundamentalist Baptist, Bob Jonesian, Evangelical Presbyterian, definitely non-Catholic, Philip Yancey (and even Tony Campolo)-styled Christianity, whose authority do I follow? Hmmmh?
I really liked Pope John Paul, and I am warming to Benedict, I love Billy Graham, and I like R. C. Sproul, and I think Robertson McQuilkin has it right. And I love reading the Bible (in a good contemporary translation).
Now what do you think I should do?
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all considered Mary a perpetual virgin! Thanks for the thread.
Then why did these reformers think that it was substantiated?
Check out this thread on FR!
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Would you say these Protestants cherry-picked their opinions?
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely "tradition" with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.
Let's see what the Founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as "silly," "desperate," "obviously false," "unbiblical tradition" here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them. I guess the same "errors" are egregious to a different degree, depending on who accepts and promulgates them -- sort of like the Orwellian proverb from Animal Farm: "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others."
General
In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .
[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands.
Martin Luther
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
John Calvin
Huldreich Zwingli
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Heinrich Bullinger
'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she{"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495
brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
that wasn't the point - the point is that it is only natural to spin things to what we believe and we'd be lying if we deny. We are fortunate to have such conviction in our faiths that we should use our "aggression" toward winning those not as faithful. If you believed what I did - you would be Catholic and if I believed what you did, I would be protestant. We both made choices and it truly makes absolutely no sense to argue or prove our respective cases. We have to get along - all Christians.
The New Testament tells us to go to the Church when there is a dispute - such as the one about Mary's perpetual virginity - and to listen to the Chruch - (who hears you hears me) and the church, the pillar and ground of truth - teaches Mary's perpetual virginity
We can't be one body if we believe different things. THere is only one truth now, btw.
That should come as no surprise. In translating the New Testament, the KJV translators changed the words of Scripture....
Mal 1:11, prior to the KJV changes, the words in bold appeared. The KJV translators changed them and substituted the words italicesd
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place sacrifice incense shall be offered unto my name, and a Clean oblation pure offering; for my name shall be great among the Gentiles heathen, saith the Lord of hosts
*It was no big deal to change Scripture to oppose the Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass so what is the big deal about abandoning Tradition?
"What came first the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles or the Bible?"
When I first read your post, I misunderstood, and want to clarify what, upon reflection, I think you're saying. The answer to this question is that the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles (i.e. tradition) came before the writings of the New Testament and their subsequent gathering into the canon. So, you're saying that the Catholic position concerning Mary, which was formalized into doctrine MUCH later (parts of it as late as late 1800's or early 1900's, I believe), were actually beliefs that arose out of very early oral tradition, and are therefore not new, not a change to our faith, but supported by evidence from the earliest days of Christianity. Is that correct?
As for myself, I have a funny, very personal belief about theological controversies-- I believe that if I need to have a defined belief on them, if I need to know the truth, that God will tell me. If He hasn't done that, which He hasn't in this case, then I don't need to know, I don't need to have a position. :) I do believe, however, that He has told some other folks the truth-- I suspect He's told the Catholics, but again, I just don't know for sure. :-D
Jesus is the Church and the Church teachs with His authority.
With all due respect, the reason you do not hear God is you do not appear to have, yet, stooped to the same humility the Theotokos modeled for us as an example.
Saul, why do you persecute me
He that heareth you, heareth me
*With all due respect, brother, I really do not find it convincing that each protestant approaches Holy Writ with an open mind. Most protestants have been reared by protestants parents who have, knowingly or not, been recipients of an oral protestant tradition predicated on opposition to the Church Jesus established.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.