Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
And almost invariably results in a heretical synthesis of Arianism and Nestorianism.
1) Calvin referred to Mary as "Mary" as often if not more times than her referred to her as the "Virgin Mary."
2) When Calvin referred to her as the "Virgin Mary" he was speaking about those Scriptures which detailed Christ's birth.
If you were to actually read the Commentaries, you would see Calvin refers to Mary as "Mary" most of the few times he even mentions her. Which is not often.
The RCC's delirium about Mary's speculated perpetual virginity reveals just how screwy Rome is about all sexuality.
I'm ping the other two of you to this excellent excerpt from Calvin's Commentary on Luke...
From JOHN CALVIN ON THE GREATNESS OF MARY (Calvin in black)
What Calvin says, I know no Protestant would deny. In God’s providence, Mary was chosen to be the mother of Jesus Christ. Indeed, that is a great honor. But note what Calvin went on to say, "And yet Christ’s reply is so far from assenting to this female voice, that it contains an indirect reproof." Calvin goes on to the real point of this text. I have “bolded” some of the key statements Calvin makes. He says, "Nay, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God. We see that Christ treats almost as a matter of indifference that point on which the woman had set a high value. And undoubtedly what she supposed to be Mary’s highest honor was far inferior to the other favors which she had received; for it was of vastly greater importance to be regenerated by the Spirit of God than to conceive Christ, according to the flesh, in her womb; to have Christ living spiritually within her than to suckle him with her breasts. In a word, the highest happiness and glory of the holy Virgin consisted in her being a member of his Son, so that the heavenly Father reckoned her in the number of new creatures. In my opinion, however, it was for another reason, and with a view to another object, that Christ now corrected the saying of the woman. It was because men are commonly chargeable with neglecting even those gifts of God, on which they gaze with astonishment, and bestow the highest praise. This woman, in applauding Christ, had left out what was of the very highest consequence, that in him salvation is exhibited to all; and, therefore, it was a feeble commendation, that made no mention of his grace and power, which is extended to all. Christ justly claims for himself another kind of praise, not that his mother alone is reckoned blessed, but that he brings to us all perfect and eternal happiness. We never form a just estimate of the excellence of Christ, till we consider for what purpose he was given to us by the Father, and perceive the benefits which he has brought to us, so that we who are wretched in ourselves may become happy in him. But why does he say nothing about himself, and mention only the word of God? It is because in this way he opens to us all his treasures; for without the word he has no intercourse with us, nor we with him. Communicating himself to us by the word, he rightly and properly calls us to hear and keep it, that by faith he may become ours." So, in Calvin’s estimate, though it was an “honor” for Mary to bear Christ Jesus, much more important was that she was given spiritual life by our Lord. In fact all of us are blessed if we are given spiritual life by Jesus. Luke 11:27. Blessed is the womb. By this eulogium the woman intended to magnify the excellence of Christ; for she had no reference to Mary, whom, perhaps, she had never seen. And yet it tends in a high degree to illustrate the glory of Christ, that she pronounces the womb that bore him to be noble and blessed. Nor was the blessing inappropriate, but in strict accordance with the manner of Scripture; for we know that offspring, and particularly when endued with distinguished virtues, is declared to be a remarkable gift of God, preferable to all others. It cannot even be denied that God conferred the highest honor on Mary, by choosing and appointing her to be the mother of his Son. And yet Christ’s reply is so far from assenting to this female voice, that it contains an indirect reproof.
You will note that in this excerpt, Calvin refers to Mary once as "the Virgin" and three times as simply "Mary."
Happy Mary.
At last we agree. Rome’s idolatrous, anti-Scriptural opinion of Mary is clearly shown on this thread.
Thank God.
Mary was blessed by God to carry the Christ child. We can safely assume that made her happy.
Mary was not any of the idolatrous adjectives and nouns Rome heaps on a simple Jewish girl who was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus.
Anyone with a Bible and a mind renewed by the Holy Spirit can tell the difference between the clear meaning of God’s word and the blasphemy Rome teaches.
Flee from it.
I have to hand it to you. You are consistent, persistent and comical. I would assume you really have to work hard to be that wrong that often.
With a bit of pagan polytheism thrown in for good measure.
Question is do you agree with the distorted trinitarianism posted by other Reformed folk on this thread?
The perseverance of the t'aints?
Happy Totally Depraved Mary.
Distorting Mary, distorting man, distorting God, distorting man's relationship to God.
Pretzel Theology.
It is an exercise in Venn Diagrams for the morbidly anti-Catholic. All that is necessary to establish lock step unity is that at some tangent their disagreements with the Catholic church intersect.
Maybe its just a regional colloquialism, but around here "t'aint" is an anatomical reference that we probably don't want to discuss in this forum.
Here are the questions:
1. So, does this mean that YOU don't know either? Because if you DO claim to know, do you have some Scripture that Calvin was unaware of?
2. WHY do you think Calvin refers to her a the Virgin Mary if he does not believe she remained one?
Now, I realize you say that the second one has something to do with affirming the Virgin Birth, but what group was Calvin addressing that was DENYING the Virgin Birth? It is axiomatic that ALL mothers were once virgins, but they aren't called that once they no longer are.
The real contradiction is that the morbidly anti-Catholics all claim to be blessed but are so damned unhappy all of the time.
Anyhow, in RE: your theory about how and why Calvin refers to the BVM...
In his "commentary" on LUKE 2:48-52 "48. And his mother said to him Those who think that the holy virgin spake in this manner, for the purpose of showing her authority, are, in my opinion, mistaken." "The holy virgin would a thousand times rather have died, than deliberately preferred herself to God"
In the commentary on John 2:1-11 "the Papists call us malignant and envious; and — what is worse — they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the holy Virgin." "The holy Virgin acknowledges both, for she abstains from addressing him any farther" "Here the holy Virgin gives an instance of true obedience which she owed to her Son"
And finally an extended citation:
Luke 11:27. Blessed is the womb. By this eulogium the woman intended to magnify the excellence of Christ; for she had no reference to Mary, whom, perhaps, she had never seen. And yet it tends in a high degree to illustrate the glory of Christ, that she pronounces the womb that bore him to be noble and blessed. Nor was the blessing inappropriate, but in strict accordance with the manner of Scripture; for we know that offspring, and particularly when endued with distinguished virtues, is declared to be a remarkable gift of God, preferable to all others. It cannot even be denied that God conferred the highest honor on Mary, by choosing and appointing her to be the mother of his Son. And yet Christ’s reply is so far from assenting to this female voice, that it contains an indirect reproof.My use of the citations in no way are an endorsement of his opinions, only to show that "When Calvin referred to her as the "Virgin Mary" he was speaking about those Scriptures which detailed Christ's birth" does not seem to hold water.
Nay, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God. We see that Christ treats almost as a matter of indifference that point on which the woman had set a high value. And undoubtedly what she supposed to be Mary’s highest honor was far inferior to the other favors which she had received; for it was of vastly greater importance to be regenerated by the Spirit of God than to conceive Christ, according to the flesh, in her womb; to have Christ living spiritually within her than to suckle him with her breasts. In a word, the highest happiness and glory of the holy Virgin consisted in her being a member of his Son, so that the heavenly Father reckoned her in the number of new creatures.
Rabid Catholics usually are not avid Malachi Martin readers.
His frankness WRT the deep flaws in the Church and its doctrines leaves many of them in freefall.
.
Thanks for posting it.
We honor the BLESSER (God) , not the blessed.. I am blessed by God as is all those He has saved ...
.
> “The real contradiction is that the morbidly anti-Catholics all claim to be blessed but are so damned unhappy all of the time.”
.
You’re projecting again (still?).
You haven’t seen real joy until you’ve attended a Pentecostal church service!
.
That is a non answer... why does God want to save men ? Is He lonely ? Does He need company? Why does God wish to save anyone?
Actually Scripture does state why .
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.