# Question about virgin birth



## Joseph Scibbe (Oct 23, 2009)

As the RCC sees it Mary was as well born of a virgin and stayed a virgin. The second part is un-Scriptural (as Jesus had siblings). But I was wondering about the first (MAry being born of a virgin). I know nothing of it from scripture and I was wondering if it was something I missed or just another RCC error.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 23, 2009)

My understanding is that they believe Mary was conceived without sin (immaculate conception), but not of a virgin. No, it's not in Scripture; it's another RCC error.


----------



## Megan Mozart (Oct 23, 2009)

You're right, it's no where to be found in scripture. If Mary's mother was a virgin, then Mary would have been conceived by the Holy Spirit as well, and therefore not under Adam's curse and without original sin, which is foolishness. I think the reason the RCC believes Mary's mother was a virgin too is because they want a way for it to be true that Mary was sinless as well, but this notion and the means they use to get to this notion are just unscriptural.


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 23, 2009)

There is absolutely no basis in Scripture for Mary to have been born of a virgin. This is a Romanist error that was introduced in order to make Mary "immaculate". It was a Papal pronouncement and has no basis in the Bible whatsoever (but in Romanist practice, that makes no difference, as the Pope's _ex cathedra_ pronouncements are on par with Scripture). 

The ridiculous thing about this dogma is that in order for Mary's momma to be able to give birth to Mary so that Mary was not tainted by sin, Mary's momma would also have to be born of a virgin... and her momma, and hers, and hers, and so forth ad nauseum. But that trail isn't ever followed. They're content to just leave it at Mary being specially born (which makes me wonder why they can't go with what Scripture actually says and be content to let Christ be the only 'special' birth).


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Oct 23, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> There is absolutely no basis in Scripture for Mary to have been born of a virgin. This is a Romanist error that was introduced in order to make Mary "immaculate". It was a Papal pronouncement and has no basis in the Bible whatsoever (but in Romanist practice, that makes no difference, as the Pope's _ex cathedra_ pronouncements are on par with Scripture).
> 
> The ridiculous thing about this dogma is that in order for Mary's momma to be able to give birth to Mary so that Mary was not tainted by sin, Mary's momma would also have to be born of a virgin... and her momma, and hers, and hers, and so forth ad nauseum. But that trail isn't ever followed. They're content to just leave it at Mary being specially born (which makes me wonder why they can't go with what Scripture actually says and be content to let Christ be the only 'special' birth).




I had thought the same thing...thanks.


----------



## KMK (Oct 23, 2009)

Unashamed 116 said:


> As the RCC sees it Mary was as well born of a virgin and stayed a virgin. *The second part is un-Scriptural (as Jesus had siblings)*.



Be careful about being too dogmatic on this point. See these threads:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f44/mary-virgin-15924/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/waldenses-24667/


----------



## DTK (Oct 23, 2009)

Unashamed 116 said:


> As the RCC sees it Mary was as well born of a virgin and stayed a virgin. The second part is un-Scriptural (as Jesus had siblings). But I was wondering about the first (MAry being born of a virgin). I know nothing of it from scripture and I was wondering if it was something I missed or just another RCC error.


One needs to be careful here - the Roman dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary does not require that Mary herself was born of a virgin. The apocryphal work, the _Proto-Gospel of James_, represents the parents of Mary (Anna and Joachim) as aged and sterile. Anne is portrayed as someone who conceived Mary after a long period of childlessness. Anne is not represented as a virgin, nor does the alleged immaculate conception require Mary herself to have been born of a virgin. The Roman dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary officially teaches that "[the] Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, *by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God*, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, *preserved free from all stain of Original sin*" as officially defined by Pope Pius IX in the Bull, _Ineffabilis_, on December 8, 1854.

When dealing with Romanists, they love to exploit the ignorance of Protestants regarding their official teachings, because it gives them some sense of superiority of "one upmanship" in the apologetic arena. Let's be careful not to represent their dogma of the immaculate conception falsely. It suffers sufficiently, as it is, from its own unbiblical and ahistorical nature, and our rejection of it should be levelled on those grounds.

DTK


----------



## Ron (Oct 23, 2009)

I believe the issue is that if Mary's supposed perpetual sinlessness required her to remain a virgin within marriage, then it would seem as though Anne, her alleged mother, too would have needed to remain "pure" in this sense if she was to bring forth Mary as she is believed to have been, preserved from the stain of original sin. 

Ron


----------



## P.F. (Oct 23, 2009)

I've never heard of it being alleged by any Roman Catholic author that Mary was born of a virgin. The immaculate conception is against Scripture because it is essentially micro-Pelagianism.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 23, 2009)

"micro-Pelagianism" - Now there's a word I haven't heard before! I think it fits perfectly.



PCFLANAGAN said:


> I've never heard of it being alleged by any Roman Catholic author that Mary was born of a virgin. The immaculate conception is against Scripture because it is essentially micro-Pelagianism.


----------



## Ron (Oct 23, 2009)

PCFLANAGAN said:


> I've never heard of it being alleged by any Roman Catholic author that Mary was born of a virgin. The immaculate conception is against Scripture because it is essentially micro-Pelagianism.



I hope I didn’t imply that, especially because I appreciate that they do not teach that, but I believe they are left with that dilemma, which is my point. In other words, why must Mary be sinless, just to sell more statues? Well in order to bring forth one without sin it would seem. And why must she remain a perpetual virgin - unless of course sexual relations within marriage are sinful (or at least abstinence is esteemed more righteous)? Accordingly, if the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity is a _de fide (definita)_ doctrine of _necessary_ proportions, then it stands to follow that we need to have a regress back to Eve of perpetual sinless, female-incubators. This is the _implication_ of their view of Mary, though they never would claim it as dogma. So, as DTK noted, we must treat their doctrine fairly and then refute it! 

We don’t have this tension within the Reformed tradition because we appreciate that Mary need not have been sinless for the incarnation to have occurred. The assumption of Mary’s body is just another falsehood that builds upon the former ones. 

Ron


----------



## P.F. (Oct 23, 2009)

Hi Ron,

To be clear, I had not seen your post while I was writing my response. My response was aimed at a couple of the earlier comments, which seemed to claim that it was an RCC teaching.

Edited to include the following to point out those comments I had seen that prompted my point about not seeing anyone in the RCC claiming that Mary's mother (usually identified as "St. Anne") as being a virgin when she conceived Mary.

"As the RCC sees it Mary was as well born of a virgin and stayed a virgin."

"I think the reason the RCC believes Mary's mother was a virgin too is because ..."

"There is absolutely no basis in Scripture for Mary to have been born of a virgin. This is a Romanist error that was introduced in order to make Mary "immaculate"."


----------



## Ron (Oct 23, 2009)

PCFLANAGAN said:


> Hi Ron,
> 
> To be clear, I had not seen your post while I was writing my response. My response was aimed at a couple of the earlier comments, which seemed to claim that it was an RCC teaching.



Noted, but it prompted me to be more clear so I'm glad I took your post as addressing me. 

For what it's worth, I never would have taken Austin's comment to suggest that he believed that Rome taught the virginity of Anne. He merely wrote:_ "My understanding is that they believe Mary was conceived without sin (immaculate conception), but not of a virgin. No, it's not in Scripture; *it's another RCC error*." _
_
Given that he noted up front that he believed that Rome does not teach that Anne was a virgin_, I would have attributed the part I placed in bold regarding "another RCC error" as addressing the immaculate conception of Mary without reference to Anne's virginity. Yet for some reason the thread took off and Austin never denied what was being inferred (by others) but not implied (by him), (lest he contradicted himself, which I wouldn't assume)! 

Pax,

Ron


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 23, 2009)

Thanks, Ron. Indeed, the bold part was a reference to the immaculate conception, not the virginity of Anne, which I have never heard taught by the RCC. Nevertheless, I think the others who responded that Rome doesn't teach Anne's virginity were answering the OP, toddpedlar, and Megan Mozart, not me. To be fair, I did *Thank* Mr. Pedlar's post, but that was because he noted the logical implications of demanding that Mary be sinless in order for Christ to be sinless.



Ron said:


> PCFLANAGAN said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Ron,
> ...


----------



## P.F. (Oct 23, 2009)

Ron: I read Austin the same way you did. I've gone back and edited my previous comment to highlight those comments that seemed to suggest that it was an RCC teaching.


----------



## Ron (Oct 23, 2009)

Austin,

The first response after yours was clearly directed at your post… It stated: _“*You're right, it's no where to be found in scripture.* If Mary's mother was a virgin…”_ [Bold emphasis mine] Obviously that should not have been taken as addressing the original post since the original post asked a question regarding the subject of Mary’s mother and the inquiry could not have been right or wrong. Then it was off to the races with TP! You’re absolutely right though, he might have been addressing the original post without a view to yours. I clearly appreciated what David was doing. He was simply addressing the first post (and possibly the ensuing errors that came from TP’s). How do I know that he was addressing the OP? He quoted it, that’s why! 

Anyway, thank you for pointing out so graciously what I obviously overstated.

Ron


----------



## Edward (Oct 23, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> There is absolutely no basis in Scripture for Mary to have been born of a virgin. This is a Romanist error



Could you provide a source to this being a teaching of Rome? 

This seems to be the 'official position' of that body on Mary's status:

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendour of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText


----------

