# The Waldenses



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

J.A. Wylie's book, The History of the Waldenses can be found at the Reformed Reader website: http://www.reformedreader.org/history/wylie/toc.htm. 

The book is both good and bad. It is good in the sense that it contains much information concerning the Waldenses that is unknown. It is also good in the sense that the memory of these Protestant martyrs should never be forgotten. The nobility of the Waldenses should be marked on a par with the Bereans of whom Paul takes note of in the book of Acts.

What is not good about the book is that Dr. Wylie - of whom is another man that should never be forgotten in the Church - adopts the popular view that the Waldenses began their history with the Martyr Peter Waldo. The Waldenses did not derive their name from Peter Waldo, but just the opposite. There was a Reformed/Protestant witness in southern France/Northern Italy long before Peter Waldo was born.

The Waldensians recieved their name from the land in which they settled - the Vaudois mountains in the French/Italian alps. The witness of Reformed/Protestant orthodoxy stretches long before the birth of Peter Waldo. The first leader of this group (of whom would later be named "Waldenses") was a godly preacher named Vigilantius (circa 400 AD). However, a Reformed orthodoxy was present in Northern Italy even before Vigilantius.

We would know nothing of Helvidius were it not for Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm). None of Helvidius' writings are available. Helvidius attacked the Roman doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jerome replied with a blistering treatise defending Mary from such an outrage. Jerome claims that Helvidius was under the tutalidge of the Arian bishop of Milan Auxentius. However, Auxentius died in 374 AD, and Helvidius did not write against the Roman doctrine until around 383. Ambrose was the Bishop of Milan after Auxentius, and it is more likely that Helvidius studied under him. The point of all of this is that resistance to Romish doctrines was fomenting in Northern Italy. Helvidius also accused Jerome of using corrupt Greek mss when he translated into Latin (later to be called the Vulgate).

Jovinian was another scholar from Northern Italy whose writings are only known through Jerome and Augustine. His attacks against the Perpetual Virginity, the Monasticism of Ambrose, and the authority of the Roman see caused him to be excommunicated by Jerome and Ambrose as well. His arguments were so persuasive that both Jerome and Augustine engaged all the powers at their command to deny Jovinian's views. Augustine was Reformed in his Soteriology, but in his Ecclesiology was Romish. This is why both Protestants and Catholics can claim Augustine as their own.

See: Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, pgs. 223-233, for more information on these men.

So, there was a Protestant witness in Northern Italy before Peter Waldo. These Protestants held to the Lucian Greek Text as it was translated into the Old Latin/Italic Bible. After his conversion Peter Waldo probably organized and systematized the teachings of the Waldensians. This would result in the remarkable success of the Waldensians under his leadership, and the subsequent increase in persecutions by the Church of Rome.

Was Peter Waldo the founder of the Waldenses? Yes/No. The Waldenses existed long before Peter Waldo, but it was his genius of organization that made them an effective witness for the Gospel for the next several centuries. The Waldensian Church would later be absorbed into the Reformation mostly in Geneva or among the French Hugenots. The Waldensian Church today has no connection with the Waldenses of the Reformation - though they try to make such claims.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## JM

Found this:



> Behind this rampart of mountains, which Providence, foreseeing the approach of evil days, would almost seem to have reared on purpose, did the remnant of the early apostolic Church of Italy kindle their lamp, and here did that lamp continue to burn all through the long night which descended on Christendom. There is a singular concurrence of evidence in favour of their high antiquity. Their traditions invariably point to an unbroken descent from the earliest times, as regards their religious belief. *The Nobla Leycon, which dates from the year 1100 [recent German criticism refers the Nobla Leycon to a later date, but still one anterior to the Reformation], goes to prove that the Waldenses of Piedmont did not owe their rise to Peter Waldo of Lyons, who did not appear till the latter half of that century (1169).* The Nobla Leycon though a poem, is in reality a confession of faith, and could have been composed only after some considerable study of the system of Christianity, in contradistinction to the errors of Rome. How could a Church have arisen with such a document in her hands? Or how could these herdsmen and vine-dressers, shut up in their mountains, have detected the errors against which they bore testimony, and found their way to the truths of which they made open profession in times of darkness like these? If we grant that their religious beliefs were the heritage of former ages, handed down from an evangelical ancestry, all is plain; but if we maintain that they were the discovery of the men of those days, we assert what approaches almost to a miracle. Their greatest enemies, Claude Seyssel of Turin (1517), and Reynerius the Inquisitor (1250), have admitted their antiquity, and stigmatised them as "the most dangerous of all heretics, because the most ancient."


 link

Most of the histories I found were written by Landmarkists. 

j


----------



## CalvinandHodges

JM said:


> Found this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behind this rampart of mountains, which Providence, foreseeing the approach of evil days, would almost seem to have reared on purpose, did the remnant of the early apostolic Church of Italy kindle their lamp, and here did that lamp continue to burn all through the long night which descended on Christendom. There is a singular concurrence of evidence in favour of their high antiquity. Their traditions invariably point to an unbroken descent from the earliest times, as regards their religious belief. *The Nobla Leycon, which dates from the year 1100 [recent German criticism refers the Nobla Leycon to a later date, but still one anterior to the Reformation], goes to prove that the Waldenses of Piedmont did not owe their rise to Peter Waldo of Lyons, who did not appear till the latter half of that century (1169).* The Nobla Leycon though a poem, is in reality a confession of faith, and could have been composed only after some considerable study of the system of Christianity, in contradistinction to the errors of Rome. How could a Church have arisen with such a document in her hands? Or how could these herdsmen and vine-dressers, shut up in their mountains, have detected the errors against which they bore testimony, and found their way to the truths of which they made open profession in times of darkness like these? If we grant that their religious beliefs were the heritage of former ages, handed down from an evangelical ancestry, all is plain; but if we maintain that they were the discovery of the men of those days, we assert what approaches almost to a miracle. Their greatest enemies, Claude Seyssel of Turin (1517), and Reynerius the Inquisitor (1250), have admitted their antiquity, and stigmatised them as "the most dangerous of all heretics, because the most ancient."
> 
> 
> 
> link
> 
> Most of the histories I found were written by Landmarkists.
> 
> j
Click to expand...


Good point j!


----------



## MW

I think I missed the point about Helvidius. Is it alleged that Helvidius maintained the reformed position against Rome because he opposed the perpetual virginity of Mary? I would find this strange since the reformers themselves did not hold this position, but opposed Helvidius.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

armourbearer said:


> I think I missed the point about Helvidius. Is it alleged that Helvidius maintained the reformed position against Rome because he opposed the perpetual virginity of Mary? I would find this strange since the reformers themselves did not hold this position, but opposed Helvidius.



Hi Pastor Winzer:

That is an excellent point - Luther and Zwingli both held to the perpetual virginity of Mary, and Calvin claims that it is a doctrine not specifically mentioned in Scripture, "Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." Commentaries, vol. 16, pg. 107.

I would beg to differ with these men because the Scriptures are very clear that Mary had other children after Jesus was born:

Matthew 12:46, Matthew 13:55, Mark 3:31-34, Mark 6:3, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, John 7:3, John 7:5, John 7:10, Acts 1:14, and 1Corinthians 9:5.

From what I understand Helvidius held to Sola Scriptura rather than tradition, and opposed the Romish doctrine on that ground.

It does not seem Scriptural to me to assert the perpetual virginity of Mary when the Bible clearly tells us that Marriage is the physical union of husband and wife, Gen. 2:24. Therefore, I think Helvidius was more "Reformed" than the Reformers on this issue.

You made an excellent point - thanks.

-CH


----------



## MW

You might find Turretin's Institutes, 2:345-346 of some interest.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

armourbearer said:


> You might find Turretin's Institutes, 2:345-346 of some interest.



Hey:

I guess I will have to add Turretin to my list of "perpetualists." I think it most increddible that one would think that Mary was a perpetual virgin when she was married to a man. I find this idea unique and without precedent in the Scriptures.

Turretin is on the defensive. One could ask: "Are there any passages in Scripture that positively state that Mary was a perpetual virgin?"

I think that kind of ends the argument.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## MW

CalvinandHodges said:


> Turretin is on the defensive. One could ask: "Are there any passages in Scripture that positively state that Mary was a perpetual virgin?"



No, the belief is based merely on human testimony, like that of the authorship of various books of Scripture. It would be reformed to say such is not binding, not to insist it is against Scripture. Turretin's defensiveness is really only in terms of correcting a misuse of the Scriptures.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

armourbearer said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turretin is on the defensive. One could ask: "Are there any passages in Scripture that positively state that Mary was a perpetual virgin?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the belief is based merely on human testimony, like that of the authorship of various books of Scripture. It would be reformed to say such is not binding, not to insist it is against Scripture. Turretin's defensiveness is really only in terms of correcting a misuse of the Scriptures.
Click to expand...


Hi:

I agree. But this leaves the Reformers in the unenviable position of defending a doctrine that is not expressly stated in Scripture. Even the Trinity has some clear passages that can be deduced to form the true doctrine. What they end up doing is "explaining away" the clear passages of Scripture to arrive at their tradition. Their bias, in other words, has become for them Biblical doctrine.

When Jesus is said to have "brothers" and "sisters" I think they are stretching their method of "explaingin away" these passages beyond credence.

Grace brother,

-CH


----------



## MW

I think the reformers are assuming the position of allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves. At no point do the Gospels set out to answer the question of Mary's marital activity; it must therefore be those who press the Scriptures to answer this question who are utilising Scripture for the wrong reasons. The reformed are simply allowing Scripture to speak for itself, and treat the perpetual virginity as a human teaching on the same level as the authorship of Hebrews.

For the identification of our Lord's brother with the son of Alphaeus, see Thomas Manton's Preface to the Epistle of James. It is plain from Gal. 1:19 that the Lord's brother was an apostle, and therefore is to be considered the son of Alphaeus, not the son of Joseph.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

armourbearer said:


> I think the reformers are assuming the position of allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves. At no point do the Gospels set out to answer the question of Mary's marital activity; it must therefore be those who press the Scriptures to answer this question who are utilising Scripture for the wrong reasons. The reformed are simply allowing Scripture to speak for itself, and treat the perpetual virginity as a human teaching on the same level as the authorship of Hebrews.
> 
> For the identification of our Lord's brother with the son of Alphaeus, see Thomas Manton's Preface to the Epistle of James. It is plain from Gal. 1:19 that the Lord's brother was an apostle, and therefore is to be considered the son of Alphaeus, not the son of Joseph.



OK. But the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is asserted by the Roman Catholics and the Reformers mentioned. Helvidius, it seems, was simply responding to the "tradition" by looking at the Scriptures. Consider, for example, Mark 6:3:



> Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they were offended at Him.


Brothers and sisters? If you want to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, then that is your privilege. I, for one, think it is contrary to the whole of the Bible concerning marriage, and to disbelieve in the PVM does not ruin any doctrine of the Bible.

I will let you have the last word.

In Jesus,

-CH


----------



## MW

> Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they were offended at Him.



Parallel place, Matt. 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" There are various familial ties which require us to allow for some elasticity in our understanding of the words "son" and "brethren."


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they were offended at Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parallel place, Matt. 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" There are various familial ties which require us to allow for some elasticity in our understanding of the words "son" and "brethren."
Click to expand...


The whole idea of Mary being permanently a virgin throughout her life is ridiculous. Matthew 1:25 - _and kept her a virgin *until* she gave birth to a Son;..._ - is clear that Mary's virginity ended after the birth of Jesus. It was important, for theological reasons, that Jesus be born of a virgin. After that event, she and Joseph engaged in sex just like any other legitimately married couple. It's hard to imagine two devout Jews like Joseph and Mary, who were doubtless aware that marriage was a creation ordinance and who were legitimately wed, not engaging in sex. Besides, since Mary gave birth to only one divine son, there would be no point in her maintaining her virginity beyond the birth of this first child.

Also, I'm surprised, Matthew, that you would accept that old Roman Catholic stunt of bending terms like "son" and "brother" to mean something other than their obvious, plain meaning.


----------



## MW

Richard, do you believe Jesus to be the biological son of Joseph? because that is what the plain meaning of that term refers to. As for the brethren of our Lord being biological brothers, it's hard to imagine all those Protestant interpreters who have regarded them as near relations being taken in by a Roman Catholic stunt. And as for your emphasis on the word until, well, what can I say, except that you might want to look up the meaning and use of the word.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Richard, do you believe Jesus to be the biological son of Joseph? because that is what the plain meaning of that term refers to. As for the brethren of our Lord being biological brothers, it's hard to imagine all those Protestant interpreters who have regarded them as near relations being taken in by a Roman Catholic stunt. And as for your emphasis on the word until, well, what can I say, except that you might want to look up the meaning and use of the word.



No, Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. As for those brothers and sisters being Mary and Joseph's biological children, what's the problem? Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus' birth, as the New Testament says. Hence, they are His half-brothers and half-sisters. Why do "all those Protestant interpreters" take precedence over what the Scriptures plainly say?


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> No, Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. As for those brothers and sisters being Mary and Joseph's biological children, what's the problem? Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus' birth, as the New Testament says. Hence, they are His half-brothers and half-sisters. Why do "all those Protestant interpreters" take precedence over what the Scriptures plainly say?



Those Protestant interpreters don't take precedence over what the Scriptures plainly say, but over what you are trying to make the Scriptures say. You already acknowledge the word "son" is used in a non-biological way, but then insist "brethren" must be taken in a biological way. The Scriptures plainly say at least one of those brethren, James, was an apostle (Gal. 1:19), and so is to be identified with the apostolic band, making him the son of Alphaeus not of Joseph.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> The Scriptures plainly say at least one of those brethren, James, was an apostle (Gal. 1:19), and so is to be identified with the apostolic band, making him the son of Alphaeus not of Joseph.



Just because he was an apostle, he couldn't have been Jesus' biological half-brother? Why not? This is a non-sequitur.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> Just because he was an apostle, he couldn't have been Jesus' biological half-brother? Why not? This is a non-sequitur.



No, it is because there are only two apostles by the name of James, and neither of these are the son of Joseph, therefore he cannot be Jesus' biological half-brother.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because he was an apostle, he couldn't have been Jesus' biological half-brother? Why not? This is a non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is because there are only two apostles by the name of James, and neither of these are the son of Joseph, therefore he cannot be Jesus' biological half-brother.
Click to expand...


The introductory note to the Book of James in the ESV reads: "Possibly one of the earliest of the New Testament writings (AD 40-50), the book is believed to have been written by Jesus' brother James (Gal. 1:19)."

Galatians 1:19: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother."

That's a pretty straightforward statement, Matthew.


----------



## MW

A straightforward comment by William Perkins (in loc.):



> In that James is called our Lord’s brother three things may be demanded. One, which James this was? Answer: It was James the son of Alphaeus; for he lived fourteen years after this, Gal. 2:9, whereas James the son of Zebedee lived not so long because he was put to death by Herod. The second thing is, how James should be the Lord’s brother? Answer: In scripture, children of the same womb are brethren; men of the same blood are brethren, as Abram and Lot, Gen. 13:8; men of the same country are brethren; thus Saul’s countrymen are called his brethren, 1 Chron. 12:2. And James is called our Lord’s brother, not because he was of the same womb, but because he was of the same blood or kindred; for Eli had two daughters – Mary espoused to Joseph, and Mary Cleophas, who afterward was married to Alphaeus, of whom came James here mentioned. James therefore was the cousin-german of Christ. Therefore Helvidius failed when he went about to infringe the perpetual virginity of the virgin Mary out of this place, as if she had more sons beside Christ. The third thing is, what benefit James had by being the Lord’s brother? Answer: He is here called the Lord’s brother only for distinction’s sake in respect of the other James, the son of Zebedee; and this brotherhood doth not make him the better apostle or the better man. Outward things do not commend us to God; and it is the spiritual kindred, by means of faith and our new birth, that brings us into favour with God, Matt. 12:49.


----------



## MW

A second straightforward comment by Thomas Manton (Works 4:12, 13):



> II. Secondly, concerning the subordinate author, James, there is some controversy about stating the right person, who he was. In the general, it is certain he was an apostle, no epistles but theirs being received into the rule of faith; and it is no prejudice that he styleth himself “the servant of the Lord,” for so doth Paul often, as we shall prove anon in the explication of the first verse. But now, among the apostles there were two called by the name of James – James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus... For indeed there were but two Jameses, this latter James being the same with him of Alpheus; for plainly the brother of the Lord is reckoned among the apostles, Gal. 1:19; and called a pillar, Gal. 2:9; and he is called the brother of the Lord, because he was in that family to which Christ was numbered. Some suppose his mother’s sister’s son, the son of Mary of Cleophas, who was sister to the Virgin. Now, Cleophas and Alpheus is all one, as a learned author supposeth... Well then, there being two, to which of these is the epistle to be ascribed? The whole stream of antiquity carrieth it for the brother of the Lord, who, as I said, is the same with Jacobus minor, or the son of Alpheus; and with good reason, the son of Zebedee being long before beheaded by Herod, from the very beginning of the preaching of the gospel, Acts 12:2.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Pastor Winzer:

I don't think that anyone denies that the term "brother" can be used to mean non-family friends - brother! 

It just seems to me that we should use the "normal" definition of a word in Scripture unless we are given information contrawise.

Was John the cousin of James, Mark 3:17?

Was Peter the cousin of Andrew, Matt. 4:18?

When the Jews talked about the seven "brothers" do they mean "cousins," Mat. 22:25?

Where, then, is the clue given in Scripture that we should interpret "brothers" and "sisters" as meaning "cousins" in Matt. 13:55,56?

I think that there is far more Biblical evidence that teaches that Mary was no longer a Virgin after Jesus was born:

And he knew her not *until* she had brought forth her firstborn son... Matt. 1:25.

I know how Turretin "explains away" the passage, but his explanation is weak. The very fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus would mean that she lost her virginity after the birth. The "sign of her virginity" (Deut. 22:15) would have been lost during the birthing process.

As I mentioned before - it would not be the natural course of marriage if both Mary and Joseph did not have relations, Gen. 2:24. Can you give any Scriptural evidence that a husband should never touch his wife during their entire lifetime together?

All of the Biblical evidence of marriage and the brothers and sisters of Jesus lends one to believe that Mary was no longer a virgin after the birth of Jesus. If God desired us to think differently, then He would have been more explicit.

Grace and Peace - brother!

-Rob


----------



## MW

Hello brother Wieland,

So far as the teaching itself is concerned, I don't push it on anyone. If you don't agree then you don't agree, and that's fine. But the main point here is to make sure we don't read into Scripture what is not there, and it seems to me this is what the deniers of Mary's perpetual virginity are doing.

Sure, there is a normal definition of "brother," and when we are speaking about a normal situation it is only natural to take words in their normal signification. This is especially the case when we read that two men were sons of the same father, as in the case of James and John -- we are obliged to understand them as being blood brothers. But you yourself do not understand the Lord's "brothers" to be full brothers, but half brothers; and thus you accept that the ordinary use of the word is not appropriate here. If that is the case, you can hardly blame me for allowing the broader use of the word, especially considering the evidence with repect to James the apostle.

Concerning your emphasis on the word until, I shall only quote one of numerous Greek authorities which maintain that "hews does not settle the question" (Expositor's Greek Testament). This author, For what it's worth, maintains your position that it would have been natural for the couple to have engaged in ordinary marital relations. So quite clearly your point cannot be established from the mere use of until or hews.

What does this leave us with -- the idea that they would have engaged in sexual relations as a matter of course for a married couple. And what do I have to gainsay it? Why, the very text of Matthew 1:25 itself says that they did not engage in these relations. Is that normal? No. So it is quite clear we are not dealing with a normal married state here. In fact, if the "hallowed womb" was reason enough to abstain from sexual relations before the birth, then it was reason enough to abstain afterwards also; for the womb was sanctified to God. And this is the pertinent reasoning Benedict Pictet brings for the teaching in his Christian Theology (London, 1834, p. 289):



> “Whether Mary remained a virgin always, the scripture does not inform us, though it may be piously believed, and indeed it seems probable, that that womb in which our Saviour received the beginning of life, was rendered so sacred by such an inmate, that his mother ever afterward continued a pure virgin; which was the opinion of the fathers in opposition to Helvidius and others.”



Blessings!


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> And what do I have to gainsay it? Why, the very text of Matthew 1:25 itself says that they did not engage in these relations.



No, it says that they did not engage in sexual relations until after Jesus was born. You can't accept the first half of the verse and ignore the second half. Sorry, Matthew, but there is no theological or biblical reason why Mary should have remained a virgin throughout her life. And that "hallowed womb" business is just pious-sounding nonsense.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> No, it says that they did not engage in sexual relations until after Jesus was born.



You've inserted the word "after" into the text, Richard.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says that they did not engage in sexual relations until after Jesus was born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've inserted the word "after" into the text, Richard.
Click to expand...


I wasn't quoting the text. Besides, "...until she gave birth to a Son..." (NASB) amounts to the same thing. The "after" is implied. None of the English translations I checked (NASB, ESV, KJV, ASV, NIV) has any type of marginal note regarding the Greek word behind the English word "until." The obvious, normal sense of the phrase "until she gave birth to a Son" is allowed to stand, as is, without comment. Any reasonable person reading that verse will naturally come to the conclusion that Joseph and Mary initiated their married sex life after the birth of Jesus.

Why are you so interested in keeping Mary a virgin when there's no biblical evidence for it?


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> I wasn't quoting the text. Besides, "...until she gave birth to a Son..." (NASB) amounts to the same thing. The "after" is implied. None of the English translations I checked (NASB, ESV, KJV, ASV, NIV) has any type of marginal note regarding the Greek word behind the English word "until." The obvious, normal sense of the phrase "until she gave birth to a Son" is allowed to stand, as is, without comment. Any reasonable person reading that verse will naturally come to the conclusion that Joseph and Mary initiated their married sex life after the birth of Jesus.



See the reference above to the Expositor's Greek New Testament. I don't know of any "reasonable" exegete who would see this text as warranting your conclusion. Hendriksen, after maintaining your position, quite plainly says, "This conclusion *cannot* be based merely upon the negative plus 'until.'" (Comment in loc., emphasis added.)



bookslover said:


> Why are you so interested in keeping Mary a virgin when there's no biblical evidence for it?



As noted earlier, not to maintain the purity of Mary but the purity of Scriptural exegesis.


----------



## JM

Interesting quote: Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s A.D. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor *Theodore Beza*, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. Theodore Beza, John Wesley and Johnathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Did Beza believe the Waldensians were around in the 120's? source


----------



## bookslover

In post #10, you say that "the Reformed...treat the perpetual virginity as a human teaching..." but in post #27 you say that you uphold such virginity out of a concern for "the purity of Scriptural exegesis."

I don't think you can have it both ways, Matthew. It's either a teaching of Scripture or it's merely "a human teaching." And, since there's no bibilcal basis for it, I think it's definitely the latter.

I think you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary merely because you _want_ to believe in it, for whatever reason.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> I don't think you can have it both ways, Matthew. It's either a teaching of Scripture or it's merely "a human teaching." And, since there's no bibilcal basis for it, I think it's definitely the latter.



At no point in this thread have I drawn attention to a Scriptural passage in support of the teaching. I have only handled the Scriptures for the purpose of showing the true import of the text in opposition to those who seek to establish non-perpetual virginity from the text -- a point the text never intended to teach. Previously I have called attention to the status of the teaching, when I maintained it is on the same level as the Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews, and I clearly said to Mr. Wieland it is fine if he does not hold to the teaching as I don't push it on anyone. That being the case, Richard, please don't impute to me more than I have said.


----------

