# Do you love the Virgin Mary?



## steadfast7

Have our Reformed forebears thrown out the baby with the bath water when it comes to Mary? It most years of the church's existence, there has been a high respect (to say the least) of Mary, such that the church has almost uniformly confessed a great adoration of her and a desire to imitate her. We, in our day, hardly mention her, even as a excellent human model of godliness and obedience. We would much rather pick from David or Moses as our examples. Have we reacted too strongly to Roman paganism so as to abandon a healthy respect for Mary?


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

Yes I love the Virgin Mary. I do not see her as a "comediatrix", whatever that means, but she was the woman through whom my Savior entered the world. She is a great example of humility and devotion to God. The early Reformers- Luther, Calvin, ect.- though they did not have the same almost idolatrous view of her as the RCC, did hold her in high esteem, as did the Wesley brothers, and others in the past. I think there is too much effort to make her just another person and not the mother of God. (that term is Biblical based on the fact that Jesus is both God and man. They said so at WTS). I have not reached a conclusion yet on her "perpetual virginity" and do not see it as a salvation issue.


----------



## regeneratedbobby

Hi Dennis. Good question. My take is this...I love Mary just as I love all my brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not revere her any more than I do any man, including Apostle Paul, Moses, King David, my mom and dad etc. I have Catholic friends that honestly believe that she was without sin. It is very sad to see how the Catholic church has distorted the gospel and turned it into an idol and works (false) religion. I have a healthy respect for the woman that God chose to bring His Son into the world through, but we cannot forget that she was a fallen human just like you and I.


----------



## py3ak

It's possible that in reaction to the excessive claims of Rome we've sidelined Mary on a practical level, just as the absurd elevation of the Apocrypha to the level of inspired Scripture sometimes makes us reject them so vigorously we forget there are some excellent things in there. But it's not entirely reasonable to compare Mary to Moses and David; there is far more in Scripture about those two men than there is about Mary. But in hiding things in her heart, in submitting to the will of God as a handmaid, in continuing steadfastly with the disciples, Mary is a beautiful example; and certainly we should join our voices to the chorus of generations that call her blessed.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I love Mary as much as you can love someone who has been dead nearly 2000 years.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## steadfast7

I know that Calvin and Luther never referred to her as other than the Virgin Mary or the Blessed Virgin, so it seems that they believed in her virginity. As for her assumption and sinlessness, obvious corruptions. But it still seems to me that valuing and esteeming her is about as orthodox as affirming the creeds and liturgy. After all, she is the theotokos, which is likewise orthodox.


----------



## SolaScriptura

steadfast7 said:


> I know that Calvin and Luther never referred to her as other than the Virgin Mary or the Blessed Virgin, so it seems that they believed in her virginity. As for her assumption and sinlessness, obvious corruptions. But it still seems to me that valuing and esteeming her is about as orthodox as affirming the creeds and liturgy. After all, she is the theotokos, which is likewise orthodox.



1. Luther and Calvin were men of their day. The world as they knew it was steeped in centuries of Catholicism. 

2. Mary being called the God-bearer in no way makes her, in her person, worthy of a particular reverence or honor more than any other faithful man or woman of God.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

Right there is no reason to say she was without sin to revere her as a great example of humility, faith and devotion to God. She was blessed above all women as the mother of our Lord. Evangelicals, in reaction to the RCC view, try to make her just like anyone else. Yes she was a sinner in need of a Savior, but God blessed her to be the mother of God and to deny that is to ignore Scripture, and even the teaching of the early Reformers.


----------



## BobVigneault

Our Lord's commentary on Mary:

Matthew 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

In as much as Mary did the will of our Father I love her for it. She deserves to be called 'blessed' for her part in the birth of Jesus. She is to be greatly admired for her role in fulfilling God's will but should receive no sentimental or ritual exultation. There must be no doctrine or prayers or days built around her memory or deeds and it is right for us to be extra cautious in encouraging others not to violate the commandment regarding idolatry. She is similar to the angels in that there is a propensity in our idol making hearts to elevate her worth beyond the role of God's faithful servant.

There is an efficacy to using her as an example of faithful service and bearing up under horrific suffering.


----------



## Jack K

I agree that sometimes we protestants have been a bit hesitant to speak highly of Mary due to the excessive views of others, but I don't think we're too far off. She's an example of a sinner who received God's grace. As such, she has some good things to teach us in the areas of submission to God and believing the Good News, but even more to show us about the power and love of God's intervening mercy.

Reading the gospels, we should not miss that Mary could be headstrong (the incident at Cana, the scolding in Jerusalem when Jesus was 12, the "intervention" she attempted with Jesus' brothers), which makes her humble faith at the angel's announcement and continuing into Acts particularly interesting. It seems she was much like each of us—arrogant and controlling at times—but God broke into her life with the Good News and opened her heart to it so that, despite her natural bent, it bowled her over and produced faithful obedience.


----------



## regeneratedbobby

Excellent follow up post, Bob.


----------



## bug

I am not sure how we can love someone that we have no relationship with, however we should respect her and acknowledge the great honour God placed upon her, and the suffering that came with that honour. We can learn from her example we see in scripture and yes sometimes we do go to far in responce to error, sometimes the Holy Spirit is underplayed because we don't want to come across as charismatic, and sometimes if we seem to be holding Mary in to favourable light then we are becoming catholic, that saddens me a little I must admit, the amount of reading into peoples words and actions that takes place these days.


----------



## Pergamum

Dennis, 

A question about the OP, why did you refer to her as the Virgin Mary instead of just Mary?

And, yes, I praise God for Mary and her great example.


----------



## steadfast7

According to all ecumenical creeds she is the Virgin Mary. Have we any reason to call her otherwise?


----------



## louis_jp

steadfast7 said:


> According to all ecumenical creeds she is the Virgin Mary. Have we any reason to call her otherwise?



She is called "virgin" Mary in reference to the virgin birth. Outside of that context, one reason to call her simply "Mary" is the place that her "perpetual virginity" occupies in Romish idolatry.


----------



## Philip

In the words of a friend of mine: "While I don't think she was sinless, I gotta say, Mary must have been one special chick."


----------



## Peairtach

Maybe we should appreciate Mary more as one of the biblical saints along with all the others, and maybe we sometimes soft pedal on her because she's been turned into an idol by some sections of the Church.

You have to take action because of dangers. Joseph, Moses, David and Paul haven't been turned into idols, so we feel more free to expatiate on them as biblical characters, and the Bible has more to say on them.

She's no longer a virgin, of course. Hasn't been for a long time. I don't think we should regard her as any less for having had marital relations.



> Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Heb 13:4)


----------



## Andres

P. F. Pugh said:


> In the words of a friend of mine: "While I don't think she was sinless, I gotta say, Mary must have been one special chick."



The irony is that your friends words actually come across as highly disrespectful. I could be wrong, but I don't think refering to women as "chicks" denotes much esteem.


----------



## Philip

Andres said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of a friend of mine: "While I don't think she was sinless, I gotta say, Mary must have been one special chick."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is that your friends words actually come across as highly disrespectful. I could be wrong, but I don't think refering to women as "chicks" denotes much esteem.
Click to expand...


I should have mentioned that the friend was a woman.


----------



## Andres

P. F. Pugh said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of a friend of mine: "While I don't think she was sinless, I gotta say, Mary must have been one special chick."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is that your friends words actually come across as highly disrespectful. I could be wrong, but I don't think refering to women as "chicks" denotes much esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have mentioned that the friend was a woman.
Click to expand...


Still doesn't change the fact that her words come across as disrespectful, but I won't lose any sleep over it.


----------



## raekwon

It's very strange to see her continually referred to as "virgin," considering she and Joseph had other kids.


----------



## steadfast7

the virginity of Mary is one of those things which have been affirmed by the church from earliest times. It's even a part of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic liturgies. It's kind of like the argument for paedobaptism in some ways, but we won't go there!
Apparently the Biblical language does not distinguish brothers and sisters from cousins, which is true in some languages today. I don't think there's anything particularly Roman about affirming her virginity, just that on this side of the enlightenment, we have dismissed the idea.

---------- Post added at 06:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 AM ----------




louis_jp said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to all ecumenical creeds she is the Virgin Mary. Have we any reason to call her otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is called "virgin" Mary in reference to the virgin birth. Outside of that context, one reason to call her simply "Mary" is the place that her "perpetual virginity" occupies in Romish idolatry.
Click to expand...

 Calvin calls her the "Virgin" or "Blessed Virgin" at least a few times in his institutes. Are you saying that this is the one instance in which Romanism had a stranglehold on his vocabulary? It is more appropriate to consider her virginity an ecumenical rather than a Romish affirmation.


----------



## J. Dean

If you mean Virgin in the sense of the Immaculate conception, I'm good with it. But as said before, she deserves attention to the extent that any other saint does: no more, no less. Should we ignore her? Absolutely not. She is an example of a godly woman, and her Magnificat is beautiful. But to exalt her in any unscriptural way is a step in the direction of Rome.


----------



## Phil D.

J. Dean said:


> If you mean Virgin in the sense of the Immaculate conception, I'm good with it.



Just a note on common terminology: the Immaculate Conception actually refers to the belief that Mary herself, in distinction from every other human being other than Christ, was conceived without the transfer of original sin.


----------



## J. Dean

Phil D. said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean Virgin in the sense of the Immaculate conception, I'm good with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a note on common terminology: the Immaculate Conception actually refers to the belief that Mary herself, in distinction from every other human being other than Christ, was conceived without the transfer of original sin.
Click to expand...

Oh! In that case, let me rephrase: if you mean Virgin in the sense of the Immaculate Conception OF Christ, then I'm good with it.

I certainly do not believe in the sinlessness of Mary. 

Thank you for pointing that out, Phil. If I'm ever in your neck of the woods, your next prime rib is on me!


----------



## Phil D.

J. Dean said:


> If I'm ever in your neck of the woods, your next prime rib is on me!




Hmmm..... I know just the place, too


----------



## MW

She is called the virgin Mary (WCF 8.2), not merely because she was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Christ, but because she always remained the virgin mother of the person we call the God-man. As Richard Sibbes explains, “It is said of the Virgin Mary, ‘All generations shall call her blessed,’ Luke i. 48. Why? Because she was the mother of the person that was God; she was the mother of Christ in human nature, and of God, because we may not sever the persons. And shall we bless the Virgin Mary, as mother of God, and not God as Father of Christ?” (Works 6:462.)


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> Have our Reformed forebears thrown out the baby with the bath water when it comes to Mary?



I think John Owen clearly and accurately answers the question: "as the Protestants believe every thing that is spoken of the blessed Virgin in the Scripture, or creed, or whatever may be lawfully deduced from what is so spoken, so they have all that honour and respect for her, which God will allow to be given to any creature." (Works, 14:120).


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks Rev. Winzer for those references! I must take back what I said about our Reformed fathers. They seemed to have esteemed her highly, but it is perhaps only modern Protestantism who has diminished her significance.


----------



## Edward

J. Dean said:


> If you mean Virgin in the sense of the Immaculate conception, I'm good with it.



I hope that you don't know what the 'immaculate conception' means. It's Roman Catholic talk for their belief that Mary was born without sin.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

cajunhillbilly53 said:


> Right there is no reason to say she was without sin to revere her as a great example of humility, faith and devotion to God. She was blessed above all women as the mother of our Lord. Evangelicals, in reaction to the RCC view, try to make her just like anyone else. Yes she was a sinner in need of a Savior, but God blessed her to be the mother of God and to deny that is to ignore Scripture, and even the teaching of the early Reformers.



Mother of God might initially seem a useful term - it was developed to protect the Deity of Christ and make it more obvious that Christ did not become divine at 30 but had a divine nature. 

1) Mary is the Mother of Jesus
2) Jesus is God
Ergo - Mary is the Mother of God.

However.

1) Mary is the Mother of God
2) The Father is God.
Ergo - Mary is the Mother of the Father.

And

1) Mary is the Mother of God
2) The Holy Ghost is God.
Ergo - Mary is the Mother of the Holy Ghost.

You see the word God is too great and too vague!

Mary is the Mother of the Human Flesh which God took. Mary is the Mother of God [in Human Flesh.] 

_____

My Grandfather drove all his life. Tanks in the War. Trucks in Peace. Taxis at weekends. And himself and his family around the place.

"The Driver" his neighbours used to call him. Even, some years after he had retired as a truck driver he was still "The Driver" because thats what he done.

Mary was a Virgin when she gave Birth to our Lord - and therefore, we can constantly say "The Virgin" because, it denotes what she was. 

So I don't have a problem any more with Mary being called "the virgin". Than I have with my grandfather being called "the driver."


----------



## steadfast7

There isn't actually any evidence that Mary ceased to become a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. But what there is is 2000 years of church tradition to the contrary of that. Why are we so quick to deny what the church has affirmed for so long, and with such rigor?


----------



## Steve Curtis

Eusebius made distinctions between the "brothers" of the Lord and Simeon as the "cousin" of the Lord (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.4; 3.11; 3.20.1; 4.22.4).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It's not my experience that she is held in low esteem in any Reformed Church. Whenever I've heard her referred to she is always lauded for her faith and blessedness. As Ruben noted, David and Moses are referred to more often in most dialog because they occupy a tremendous amount of "real estate" in the Scriptures. If you want to blame anyone for the fact that Mary is not on our mind as a direct example all the time then blame the Biblical authors who mention her very infrequently.

Mine is a Church that is not topical but goes through the Scriptures as they present themselves. If we're going through any of the Epistles, for instance, there isn't a word on Mary and, consequently, we're not going to insert a time of "devotion" to her simply to cause people not to worry that we don't hold her in high regard. We assign to her the esteem that the Scriptures assign and we also assign to her the amount of direct attention that the Scriptures do as well. If she was meant to be at the fore of our thoughts constantly, that is missing from any of the Gospels and the Epistles that it was our duty to do so.


----------



## louis_jp

armourbearer said:


> She is called the virgin Mary (WCF 8.2), not merely because she was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Christ, but because she always remained the virgin mother



WCF 8.2 says that "the Son of God... being coveived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary...". Clearly the context here is the virgin birth.


----------



## MW

louis_jp said:


> WCF 8.2 says that "the Son of God... being coveived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary...". Clearly the context here is the virgin birth.



Please read the whole section and the point made by Sibbes will become clear.


----------



## louis_jp

armourbearer said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> WCF 8.2 says that "the Son of God... being coveived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary...". Clearly the context here is the virgin birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the whole section and the point made by Sibbes will become clear.
Click to expand...


I don't see how WCF 8.2 relates to the doctrine of perpetual virginity, or to Richard Sibbes for that matter. Could you make the connection explicit?


----------



## Prufrock

louis_jp said:


> I don't see how WCF 8.2 relates to the doctrine of perpetual virginity, or to Richard Sibbes for that matter. Could you make the connection explicit?



I think there may be a bit of misunderstanding as to the purpose of the quotation; it does not address whether Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ (though, it should be noted, that the Reformed tradition did generally maintain the pious tradition that she remained a virgin), but rather that Mary perpetually remains the _virgin *mother*_ of our Lord, the title being defined by her relationship to the God-man, which remains unchanging.


----------



## MW

louis_jp said:


> I don't see how WCF 8.2 relates to the doctrine of perpetual virginity, or to Richard Sibbes for that matter. Could you make the connection explicit?


 
The reference to WCF 8.2 didn't relate to perpetual virginity. That is not a matter of dogma. What is dogma is the fact that Mary is the virgin mother of the person we call the God-man. That relation can never be changed. The unique motherhood is part and parcel of the unique personhood. The Confession teaches us to call her "the virgin Mary" as a theological fact tied to the person of Christ.


----------



## dudley

SolaScriptura said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that Calvin and Luther never referred to her as other than the Virgin Mary or the Blessed Virgin, so it seems that they believed in her virginity. As for her assumption and sinlessness, obvious corruptions. But it still seems to me that valuing and esteeming her is about as orthodox as affirming the creeds and liturgy. After all, she is the theotokos, which is likewise orthodox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Luther and Calvin were men of their day. The world as they knew it was steeped in centuries of Catholicism.
> 
> 2. Mary being called the God-bearer in no way makes her, in her person, worthy of a particular reverence or honor more than any other faithful man or woman of God.
Click to expand...


I agree with Ben "Mary being called the God-bearer in no way makes her, in her person, worthy of a particular reverence or honor more than any other faithful man or woman of God." As a Protestant who was at one time a catholic I have rejected the catholic view and veneration of Mary..I do not believe in her Imaculate conception , her assumption or any other titles romanists and the papists place on her. I respect her as the mother of the earthly Christ.


----------



## louis_jp

armourbearer said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how WCF 8.2 relates to the doctrine of perpetual virginity, or to Richard Sibbes for that matter. Could you make the connection explicit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reference to WCF 8.2 didn't relate to perpetual virginity. That is not a matter of dogma. What is dogma is the fact that Mary is the virgin mother of the person we call the God-man. That relation can never be changed. The unique motherhood is part and parcel of the unique personhood. The Confession teaches us to call her "the virgin Mary" as a theological fact tied to the person of Christ.
Click to expand...


I don't have any objection to that, and I guess I misunderstood your earlier post, but note that she is called just "Mary" in the gospels, even after Christ's birth. (see Lk. 2:34; also Acts 1:14).


----------



## steadfast7

Calling her "The Virgin" or "Virgin Mary" is probably a means to distinguish her from the other Marys, or a way of esteeming her. Either way, it had to have been a very early phrase to use.


----------



## reaganmarsh

I'm with Armourbearer, the rationale for calling her the "Virgin" is really only in relation to her status at the conception & birth of Christ. It's a theologically-driven shorthand, as is the _theotokos _term, in order to emphasize & remind us of God's faithfulness in fulfilling the Isa 7 prophecy. 

Further -- as I read it, Matt 1.25 is pretty clear that Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Christ/their marriage. Perpetual virginity in the RCC sense, therefore, is not sustainable biblically. 

I'm glad to honor Mary as my sister in Christ, and to love her in that sense, and to be excited that God saw fit to use her to fulfill one aspect of his covenant of grace. I'm amazed at the fact that God condescended in such a way as to bring the Saviour through such a one as Mary. I'm also glad to honor my wife as my sister in Christ, and to be excited that God uses her to fulfill a different aspect of the covenant of grace. I'm similarly amazed that God has condescended to bring others to the Saviour through my wife.


----------



## steadfast7

I thought Armourbearer was affirming the traditional position, that Mary remained virgin (?)


reaganmarsh said:


> Matt 1.25 is pretty clear that Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Christ/their marriage.


 depends what is meant by "... until she bore a son." It could go both ways.


----------



## smhbbag

> depends what is meant by "... until she bore a son." It could go both ways.



What is a valid use of "until" that does not involve the action before it changing or ceasing? Is heos hou ever used that way in scripture or any other early writing?

That is, what is some other sentence that says "X was the case until Y" but we know that X really continued well after Y? The construction rings false, and that's a kind way of putting it.

I'm not sure my father-in-law would have been comforted if I told him, when I was dating his daughter, "Don't worry, I have no plans to _know_ your daughter until tomorrow." 

While dodging his flying fist, I would have no right to complain "Hey, I didn't say I was going to know her tomorrow, I just said I wouldn't know her until then. That means I might never _know_ her!"

I would then have to dodge another flying fist for being obtuse and abusing the language.

"Until" means the action before the "until" changes at the "until."

(My father-in-law is not really a violent man  )


----------



## steadfast7

There is such a thing as the use of _heos_ in a perpetual sense. Eg.
Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand *until* I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
Matt 5:18, For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law *until* all is accomplished.

The early church who insisted on Mary's perpetual virginity also knew Greek. Just sayin'


----------



## smhbbag

> The early church who insisted on Mary's perpetual virginity also knew Greek. Just sayin'



And almost all of them had erroneous views of sex which impacted their opinion on the matter. Did Mary get to play by some special rules whereby she was not obligated to unite with her husband? Was Joseph given special grace to deal with such deprivation? 

The point stands about heos hou.


----------



## steadfast7

smhbbag said:


> The early church who insisted on Mary's perpetual virginity also knew Greek. Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And almost all of them had erroneous views of sex which impacted their opinion on the matter. Did Mary get to play by some special rules whereby she was not obligated to unite with her husband? Was Joseph given special grace to deal with such deprivation?
Click to expand...

 Some good points there, but we can only speculate. The question is whether we want to confess the issue of her perpetual virginity together with the broader ancient (and Reformed?) church.

---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------




smhbbag said:


> "Until" means the action before the "until" changes at the "until."


 clearly, I've demonstrated that this point _doesn't_ stand. Heb 1:13 ... Will Christ _cease_ to sit at the right hand of the Father when his enemies are placed under his feet??


----------



## smhbbag

> Some good points there, but we can only speculate. The question is whether we want to confess the issue of her perpetual virginity together with the broader ancient (and Reformed?) church.



Well, clearly I don't want to have unity with the broader ancient church in this case. If I did, I might feel tainted or lesser for not being a virgin.

From a misguided attempt to honor Mary, they have in fact become her accuser. Continued virginity in marriage is shame, not honor. If we want to feel connected to solid roots, maybe look at how the Puritans exercised church discipline on people who put their spouses through "dry spells" shorter than Joseph apparently suffered.

Some will say that from the beginning this was no ordinary marriage. That's about the closest anyone can come to positive, Biblical evidence for it, and it just doesn't satisfy. I care about this, ironically, because I do think we should honor Mary, and calling her a perpetual virgin is an assault on her character.



> clearly, I've demonstrated that this point doesn't stand. Heb 1:13 ... Will Christ cease to sit at the right hand of the Father when his enemies are placed under his feet??



The question I posed was about the use of heos hou. Heb 1:13 does not use it, therefore the point stands.

I might suggest arguing from Matthew 26:36 or Luke 13:8.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Biblical evidence shows that Jesus may have had up to nine siblings, so the perpetual virgin concept is false regardless of how we interpret a single Greek word. The Catholic doctrine actually goes even further than this, they believe that Mary not only remained a virgin her entire life, but that she did not deliver Jesus in the usual way, but rather he miraculously transported from within Mary without traveling through the birth canal.


----------



## steadfast7

smhbbag said:


> The question I posed was about the use of heos hou.


how do you parse the _hou_? and how does that make all instances of _heos_ mean that change happens at the "until"? In order for your point to stand, you need to show me how Heb 1:13 demonstrates a change in Jesus' status vis a vis the Father after his enemies are put under his feet. Whatever your thoughts are of Mary and Joseph's sex drive are irrelevant.


Bill The Baptist said:


> Biblical evidence shows that Jesus may have had up to nine siblings, so the perpetual virgin concept is false regardless of how we interpret a single Greek word. The Catholic doctrine actually goes even further than this, they believe that Mary not only remained a virgin her entire life, but that she did not deliver Jesus in the usual way, but rather he miraculously transported from within Mary without traveling through the birth canal.


The early church would have had plenty of opportunity to venerate the blood siblings of Jesus in as much a degree as Mary if this were the case. Whence the insistence on her virginity throughout the patristic period, such that it made itself into the liturgy?

---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

Here's my question: what exactly do we lose by confessing Mary's virginity together with the RC and EO churches? Does this hurt the gospel? Is it heresy?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

"and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"-Matt 13:54-56

The Roman Catholic position is that these siblings were from Joseph's previous marriage, even though there is absolutely no evidence for this. In fact, the bible refers to Joseph as a just man which would not have been in keeping with polygamy in this time. Catholics have never had a problem with establishing doctrine that is not biblical, so why do we expect that this should be any different? Of course we should love and revere Mary, but not as deity and not as perpetually virginal. Doing this in fact denegrates women because it implies that a woman cannot be venerated if she engages in the normal reproductive activity that God ordained and blessed.


----------



## steadfast7

Bill The Baptist said:


> "and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"-Matt 13:54-56
> 
> The Roman Catholic position is that these siblings were from Joseph's previous marriage, even though there is absolutely no evidence for this. In fact, the bible refers to Joseph as a just man which would not have been in keeping with polygamy in this time. Catholics have never had a problem with establishing doctrine that is not biblical, so why do we expect that this should be any different? Of course we should love and revere Mary, but not as deity and not as perpetually virginal. Doing this in fact denegrates women because it implies that a woman cannot be venerated if she engages in the normal reproductive activity that God ordained and blessed.


It is as much an assumption that her virginity is a result of corrupt doctrine as the assumption that Jesus' 'siblings' are actually cousins and other relations. As mentioned earlier, the ancient language (and many modern ones) does not distinguish this. Almost anyone in Asian culture can be called brother and sister.

---------- Post added at 07:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

just for the record ... it doesn't really matter to me whether she was perpetually virginal or not. I have no closet-catholic axe to grind. I'm just trying to assess why it matters to Protestants so much that we disagree with the ancient church on this point.


----------



## louis_jp

steadfast7 said:


> The early church would have had plenty of opportunity to venerate the blood siblings of Jesus in as much a degree as Mary if this were the case.



Mary occupies a special place, as she is "the symbol and the most perfect realization of the church." (CCC, 507). As the older Catechism states, "The miraculous privileges accorded the Blessed Virgin Mary by Almighty God testify to her position as the most exalted of God's creatures;" hence, she "is given the title of Co-Redemptrix of the human race." (Balt. Catechism, 87).

The privileges referred to are bound up with her "perpetual virginity," as "Mary, the Mother of God, remained a virgin not only in the conception of Christ but also in His birth and during the rest of her life." (id.) Also, "Mary 'remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to Him... always a virgin' (citing Augustine)... The Virgin Mary cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation...." (CCC, 510-11).

As one keen observer of Roman Catholicism remarked: "Mariology cannot be considered as a mere excrescence on the total mass of Catholic doctrine and piety... It has no marginal place in the system... it represents the fundamental theological expression of the necessity of co-redemptive mediation on the part of the creature.... Mary enters co-operatively into the work of salvation in the name, and in the place, of all humanity... Now the new, the second Eve, who generates the divine-human life of the faithful in her most spotless womb, who alone 'distributes the graces indispensable for salvation' has her collective realization in the Church.... It is only in the Virgin that the Church can become mediator of all the graces. Not for nothing could Pope John XXIII say, 'He sets in jeopardy his salvation, who tossed in the storms of this world, refuses to clasp her helping hand,' since 'it is through Mary that we come to Jesus'... The countersign for the recognition of the true Church of Christ is the veneration of Mary, because 'where Mary is not venerated, there is no Church of Christ." (Vittorio Subilia, "The Problem of Catholicism).

I'm not saying that to believe in the perpetual virginity, or to regard Mary highly, means that you have to embrace all that other nonsense, but the "tradition" of the ancient church centered in Rome is intimately bound up with it, so I would be careful about wanting to identify with all that in the interest of liturgy and ecumenism. On the other hand, if you really believe that as a matter of historic fact Mary remained a virgin, and if you want to give her a special place in your esteem, then so be it.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

27As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!" 28But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"-Luke 11:27-28


----------



## smhbbag

> how do you parse the hou? and how does that make all instances of heos mean that change happens at the "until"? In order for your point to stand, you need to show me how Heb 1:13 demonstrates a change in Jesus' status vis a vis the Father after his enemies are put under his feet.



Not sure how to say this, other than that I do not have to show any such thing. I don't claim that Hebrews 1 means Jesus' status changes, and my position doesn't imply that it should.

I am saying that, in order for Mary to be a perpetual virgin, heos hou would have to means something in Matt. 1:25 that it doesn't mean anywhere else.



> Whatever your thoughts are of Mary and Joseph's sex drive are irrelevant.



Married people are commanded to have sex regularly, apart from short seasons dedicated for a specific purpose like fasting or prayer. Joseph and Mary were married. Therefore, barring physical issues that make the act impossible, it was their moral obligation not to be virgins. That has nothing to do with my estimation of their sex drives or any other vulgar thing. Simply, it's a command. 

So, unless there is a coherent position (I'm not even looking for a good argument, just a coherent position) regarding why Mary and Joseph were excluded from such commands, then we must either call them grave sinners deserving of discipline, or we must reject her perpetual virginity.


----------



## py3ak

I found Lightfoot an illuminating read:
The Brethren of the Lord by J.B. Lightfoot

The perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be made a matter of confession - we don't have Biblical warrant to affirm that. _That's_ what we lose by confessing it with the RC and the EO: that now we are adding to what has been revealed.
At the same time, it can be held as a pious tradition; not as binding the conscience, but as probable. In other words, if we on the one hand very properly refuse to confess this as revealed truth, that does not mean on the other hand that we must attempt to oppose the very idea: only its elevation to the status of a doctrine, or the ridiculous accretions that it has collected.


----------



## steadfast7

Again, I'm not here to argue the text. where it's not decisive either way. Calvin comments wisely on this verse.


> 25. And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary's perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. [115] It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. 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.


----------



## smhbbag

Calvin was wrong.

I have yet to see any interaction whatsoever with the duties of the marriage bed. Out of curiosity (and, as Calvin might say, an extreme fondness for disputation), I looked again into what Catholic apologists say on the matter.

This seems a rather central question. If Mary was a perpetual virgin, why was that not sin? 

Without an answer to that, the whole thing crumbles...badly.


----------



## Peairtach

Do we love the Virgin Mary? Do we love Moses, David, Peter and Paul, Calvin and Hodge?

In a sense yes, _from what we know about them_ from Scripture and history, but we don't know everything about them from Scripture and history. On the other hand there are apects of them we don't like from what we already know, and if we met them we might not draw to them immediately.

Of course when we meet them in Heaven they will be sinless but will still have different personalities and quirks and peculiarities which we may not _like._ Variety is the spice of life.

We don't at present know them personally as we know the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in Christ, nor do we have them dwelling in us.


----------



## Phil D.

Given that scripture isn't explicit in this matter, it would be folly to assert or affirm Mary's perpetual virginity. By the same token, I think one might allow for such a possibility, so long as too much isn't made of it.


----------



## Peairtach

I don't see any reason for Mary's perpetual virginity. It's not taught in Scripture.

Is it believed that she thought this was the right thing to do or that God had told her to remain a virgin because her womb was holy? What is the theological _raison d'etre_?

It is more in keeping with Christ's full humanity that his mother's womb wasn't sacred and could be used to produce brothers and sisters.

He was as much a man as we are, yet without sin.

We know that the errors that would become Romanism were mysteriously developing even in Paul's day.


----------



## py3ak

Those experiencing deja vu might light to consult the thread from the last time we showed our passionate fondness for disputation.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/do-you-believe-perpetual-virginity-mary-48058/

I believe all the arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity are well presented and rebutted there.


----------



## Phil D.

py3ak said:


> I believe all the arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity are well presented and rebutted there.



Sooo... you we're one of the three heretics in that poll, eh?


----------



## py3ak

While this is not certain, but merely pious tradition, I don't think I voted at all.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

The Roman church and the EO as well, teach that Joseph was a widower with sons and daughters from a previous marriage. So the brothers and sisters of Jesus were step siblings, or some such. Half-siblings? whatever. I just do not see any evidence for that. Would love to see if any evidence exists in the EFCs. But I agree there is NO reason to see Mary fulfilling her wifely duties in bed as making her less of a truly Blessed woman.


----------



## steadfast7

Side point, but isn't it true that Jesus gets his human nature from Mary?


----------



## Peairtach

Yes.

The Holy Spirit moved over the ovum of Mary to make a New Creation, just as He had hovered over the unformed and unfilled Earth, thousands of years before, to make the Old Creation.



> And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2)


----------

