Do you love the Virgin Mary?

[ProtestantBankie]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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 (?)

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]

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?

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 ----------

"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]

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.

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]

"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]

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.