Was Mary Perpetually A Virgin?

[SolaScriptura]

I can't see how this works with an ancient text written in another language and completely different customs. Taking words as straightforward is known to lead to many mishaps in cross-cultural communication.

Very true - but thankfully God gave us teachers and brains to learn how to do exegesis... and the point of a good hermeneutic and exegesis is to (attempt!) to deduce authorial intent. And thanks to the labors of many, there are definitely tools and to aid in the process. But - and I even preached a sermon on this in the not so distant past - even when idioms and metaphors are used, a concrete referent is still in mind - "raining cats and dogs" doesn't mean anything and everything, it has a specific meaning. Same with metaphors, etc. But that's neither here nor there.

Thankfully the passages in question are not in genres known to make use of tricky figures of speech and thought construction, no, they're narrative passages. And the interpretive rules for narrative are fairly commonly known.

Please tell me you're not going to attempt to undermine our ability to understand the Bible just to make room for this nonsense about Mary.

 

[MW]

Please tell me you're not going to attempt to undermine our ability to understand the Bible just to make room for this nonsense about Mary.

My comments only undermine the naivete connected with a "straightforward" reading. As the thread has shown, if nothing else, "firstborn," "until," and "brethren" do not have the straightforward meaning some would like to impose upon them. It is only straightforward to those who are not willing to look at broader considerations which speak to authorial intent.

 

[SolaScriptura]

My comments only undermine the naivete connected with a "straightforward" reading. As the thread has shown, if nothing else, "firstborn," "until," and "brethren" do not have the straightforward meaning some would like to impose upon them. It is only straightforward to those who are not willing to look at broader considerations which speak to authorial intent.

But it actually does undermine our ability to engage in communication. Where are the contextual or exegetical clues that something other than a straightforward meaning is intended by the author? And those are important. And in the absence of such clues there’s no warrant for believing that something other than the straightforward meaning is intended. That’s a fact, Jack.

We repeatedly demonstrated how the straightforward ordinary reading is very clear. And we’ve given lots of passages to support. There’s literally no case in the New Testament of someone being called a brother in a context of family relationships that’s not a Brother. Etc. There’s literally no instance in the Bible of a human being being called a first born when he was an only child when the author is writing from the vantage point of later, etc.etc,

Affirming that such a thing as straightforward language exists is not naïve, it’s the bedrock of all human communication.

 

[MW]

We repeatedly demonstrated how the straightforward ordinary reading is very clear. And we’ve given lots of passages to support. There’s literally no case in the New Testament of someone being called a brother in a context of family relationships that’s not a Brother. Etc.

I gave the case of Lot who was called brother in Greek. There are numerous examples of this. "Brother" in the context of a clan does not have the same meaning as brother in a nuclear family. You are demonstrating the problem of cross-cultural communication to which I referred.

As for firstborn, we pointed out the OT legal context of that.

As for until, I gave a page of commentaries that are thrown together on bible hub to show that nothing can be drawn from it.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I gave the case of Lot who was called brother in Greek. There are numerous examples of this. "Brother" in the context of a clan does not have the same meaning as brother in a nuclear family. You are demonstrating the problem of cross-cultural communication to which I referred.

As for firstborn, we pointed out the OT legal context of that.

As for until, I gave a page of commentaries that are thrown together on bible hub to show that nothing can be drawn from it.

We replied to those. And just today I further refuted the silly idea that they commonly used brother for “relative.” They didn’t. And one verse in the LXX no more establishes that as a legitimate understanding that trumps all others than one reference to baptism for the dead establishes that practice.

Anyway, this is going nowhere… but I and others have powerfully demonstrated plain teaching of scripture in a half dozen or more passages, and all that can be done is try to pot shoot them all to defend an impious tradition.

The truly Reformed don’t let the traditional tail wag the dog.

 

[MW]

Anyway, this is going nowhere

Something I can agree with. I leave you to your triumphalism.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Something I can agree with. I leave you to your triumphalism.

You mean my commitment to the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura... the formal principle not only of the Reformation but of everything we should believe and practice ... and seeing how the church is a "creature of the Word" established by it, and utterly subordinate to it - we must cry Ad Fontes!

 

[MW]

You mean my commitment to the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura... the formal principle not only of the Reformation but of everything we should believe and practice ... and seeing how the church is a "creature of the Word" established by it, and utterly subordinate to it - we must cry Ad Fontes!

By triumphalism I mean your commitment to believing you have successfully demonstrated your view as the straightforward reading of Scripture. I suppose I could add your repeated assertions that you alone are holding to sola scriptura to the exclusion of those who do not see things the way that you do. Triumphalism would be a kind word to describe it.

 

[SolaScriptura]

By triumphalism I mean your commitment to believing you have successfully demonstrated your view as the straightforward reading of Scripture. I suppose I could add your repeated assertions that you alone are holding to sola scriptura to the exclusion of those who do not see things the way that you do. Triumphalism would be a kind word to describe it.

Not only I, but the entire stream of interpretation that has faithfully applied Reformation principles to this area. Sad to see professed uncertainty all because of deference to manmade tradition. I'm not being triumphalist or arrogant... raw defenders of tradition are being arrogant to suggest that their special pleadings actually raise a doubt as to what the Bible is saying, and you previously in this thread tried to lump those of us who believe the Bible is more than abundantly clear on this, and therefore deny PV, in with fanatics and heretics... as if to depart from the tradition is to make oneself a fanatic or heretic.. or that some tradition should be given the benefit of the doubt simply because one's favored historical voices agreed with it though it has no positive warrant in Scripture. That's disgraceful. And you call me triumphalist and cast aspersion on my commitment to ensuring that every Tradition is subordinated to Scripture in accordance with 1 Thess 5:21.

So from where in Scripture are we taught that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life? Or where at least does it suggest that she did?

Anyway, the Bible is clear. It has perspicuity.

And no, straightforward narrative accounts of family contexts aren't hard passages, as we've shown. And absolutely no attempt has (or can be!) demonstrated to show that there are any contextual or textual "clues" that something other than the straightforward meaning is intended. That is the very definition of special pleading.


So in accordance with the teaching of Scripture, as derived by a straightforward normal sense reading of Scripture, allowing one Scripture to interpret another due to the analogy of faith, the faithful should believe that Mary was a virgin at the time of her conception of Jesus, her husband didn't have sexual relations with her until after the birth of Jesus, but they went on to have a number of children, both sons and daughters.

Cheers!

 

[MW]

Not only I, but the entire stream of interpretation that has faithfully applied Reformation principles to this area.

Now that's just silly. The reformed tradition holds to the opposite. But I suppose in your triumphalism you can imagine they are not reformed.

Campegius Vitringa: "The doctors of our Church believe Mary always remained a virgin, but many add that this is not a dogma of faith, and some have spoken doubtfully about this matter."

 

[TheInquirer]

Anyone want to take bets on which of these guys drop the argument first?

 

[No Other Name]

As someone who agrees with Ben and liked his comments, I do so by interpreting "taking words straightforward" as being more fully stated as "taking the most common meaning among the possible meanings of the word unless context leads to more secondary meaning rather than the normal primary meaning".

You can then see why Ben said "taking words straightforward". It should be well .... straightforward.

How is this still being discussed? Does not every faithful preacher do this when preparing a sermon or teaching from the Word?

Plain preaching, according to Perkins, generally followed three steps in exposition:

a) It gave the meaning of a text of Scripture in its context;
b) It taught a few profitable points of doctrine gathered from the natural sense of the text;
c) It applied, in plain speech, the doctrines "rightly collected to the life and the manner of men." (quoting Perkins from The Art of Prphecying from 2:662 in The Works of William Perkins (London: John Legart, 1613)

The first part of the Puritan sermon was exegetical and expositional; the second, doctrinal and didactic; the third, applicatory. ... Thomas Lea says Puritan ministers used the following principles in sermon preparation, all of which are thoroughly Reformed:

1) They emphasized the importance of words in the text of the Scripture.
2) They recognized the importance of the context of a text.
3) They demonstrated reasonable thinking in understanding and applying Scripture.
4) They used Scripture to interpret Scripture, underscoring the analogy of faith, which means that each part of Scripture must be interpreted in harmony with the whole.
5) They focused on the literal meaning of the text unless context pointed them in another direction.
6) They judiciously handled the figures of speech in Scripture.
7) They insisted on the perspicuity of Scripture in all matters related to faith.
8) They depended on the illumination of the Holy Spirit for a correct interpretation.


- "Puritan Preaching (I)" in A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, Joel Beeke and Mark Jones, pp. 690 - 691.

(List numbering created by me and bolded added for emphasis)

I am dismayed by the dismissal of plain direct reading in this thread by specious claims akin to "that's not how language works" or worse:

as "bald appeal to unaided reason" and being opposed to Reformed tradition and a horrific charge that we think we have the Holy Spirit more so than Calvin and others.

I will say this again. Calvin (nor Campegius Vitringa nor any other Reformed father) has ever identified the context that points towards another direction besides the straightforward meaning (at least not in the quotes given here in this thread).

I am astonished to find that we are the ones accused of dogmatism and plain reading for plain exposition is seemingly denounced (directly so in some posts here) when it was literally championed by our Puritan forbears.

I must be missing something here?

 

[No Other Name]

Anyone want to take bets on which of these guys drop the argument first?

They seem to have been done. I doubt my post will reignite anyone. This is probably losing steam as all such threads do.

 

[davejonescue]

As someone who agrees with Ben and liked his comments, I do so by interpreting "taking words straightforward" as being more fully stated as "taking the most common meaning among the possible meanings of the word unless context leads to more secondary meaning rather than the normal primary meaning".

You can then see why Ben said "taking words straightforward". It should be well .... straightforward.

How is this still being discussed? Does not every faithful preacher do this when preparing a sermon or teaching from the Word?



I am dismayed by the dismissal of plain direct reading in this thread by specious claims akin to "that's not how language works" or worse:

as "bald appeal to unaided reason" and being opposed to Reformed tradition and a horrific charge that we think we have the Holy Spirit more so than Calvin and others.

I will say this again. Calvin (nor Campegius Vitringa nor any other Reformed father) has ever identified the context that points towards another direction besides the straightforward meaning (at least not in the quotes given here in this thread). And I have asked for these quotes if they are out there - knowing that it can be a very real possibility that I am unaware of them.

I am astonished to find that we are the ones accused of dogmatism and plain reading for plain exposition is seemingly denounced (directly so in some posts here) when it was literally championed by our Puritan forbears.

I must be missing something here?

There have been though.

1. There is the question of the age in which Jesus returns back from Egypt (age 4-6) and no siblings are mentioned. Odd for a couple of normal relations.
2. There is the question of why no siblings, but "relatives & acquaintances" were mentioned when he stayed back in the temple (age 11-12.)
3. There is the question of why did Jesus give his mother away to John, if him being God knew his supposed brothers would convert very shortly, and according to Jewish custom it would be their responsibility?
4. There is a question of who authored the book of James, Calvin seems to be taking the position it was the son of Alphaeus, rather than Jesus' kin.
5. There is possible correlation with Mary and Ezek. 44:1-2.
6. Brothers, and sisters, in Jewish culture, could very well mean relative, or cousins.
7. Firstborn, does not have to mean only relative in succession to other siblings.
8. Until, doesnt have to mean that something happened subsequently.
9. And the pre-existing tradition of the Church for 1500 years before the Reformers wrote.

Now whether one wants to accept these as viable, that is on them; but one cant act as if the Reformers were just blindly holding on to tradition. Instead, they may have saw it as a point of tradition plausible by scripture, and not a point of needed contention. They were just as versed, if not more versed in the scriptures than we are, and they never really swayed from going against tradition if it were deemed needed by the scriptures. This alone, with the sheer numbers of well-known and respected Reformers who held to it, should give the position credence of at least plausible. The point, they were not holding simply to tradition, they were working within a framework where all, if not more of the things above were being considered.

We all, who are Calvinists, do the same thing with each verse in the Bible that seems to give the idea of libertarian freewill or universal atonement via the plain meaning, i.e. Joh. 3:16, 1 Joh. 2:2, and others. That is, since we are working within a certain theological framework, we say things like "the world means the elect," and "all doesn't mean all," etc. In these cases, instead of letting the plain meaning contradict our systems, we redefine the plain to coalesce with them. Which is interesting, because we do so in the name of a system formulated via the very Reformer we are now chiding for his theological blindness.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Now that's just silly. The reformed tradition holds to the opposite. But I suppose in your triumphalism you can imagine they are not reformed.

Campegius Vitringa: "The doctors of our Church believe Mary always remained a virgin, but many add that this is not a dogma of faith, and some have spoken doubtfully about this matter."

Now that's just silly. The reformed tradition holds to the opposite. But I suppose in your triumphalism you can imagine they are not reformed.

Campegius Vitringa: "The doctors of our Church believe Mary always remained a virgin, but many add that this is not a dogma of faith, and some have spoken doubtfully about this matter."

I’d like to thank you for making your point so clearly, and illustrating mine so well (as I said way back in post 216 I believe).

One can either make their interpretive bed with baseless Tradition or with Scripture.

 

[chuckd]

Anyone want to take bets on which of these guys drop the argument first?

I got $5 on a moderator closing this thread before one of them will.

 

[SolaScriptura]

1. There is the question of the age in which Jesus returns back from Egypt (age 4-6) and no siblings are mentioned. Odd for a couple of normal relations.
2. There is the question of why no siblings, but "relatives & acquaintances" were mentioned when he stayed back in the temple (age 11-12.)
3. There is the question of why did Jesus give his mother away to John, if him being God knew his supposed brothers would convert very shortly, and according to Jewish custom it would be their responsibility?
4. There is a question of who authored the book of James, Calvin seems to be taking the position it was the son of Alphaeus, rather than Jesus' kin.
5. There is possible correlation with Mary and Ezek. 44:1-2.
6. Brothers, and sisters, in Jewish culture, could very well mean relative, or cousins.
7. Firstborn, does not have to mean only relative in succession to other siblings.
8. Until, doesnt have to mean that something happened subsequently.
9. And the pre-existing tradition of the Church for 1500 years before the Reformers wrote.

So, looking at this list... none of them teach or imply or infer any Marian doctrine. To each point:
1-3. But his siblings ARE mentioned in the Gospels... as skeptics/unbelievers. There are many many instances in the Bible of someone not being mentioned in one place and then mentioned in another.
4.No real question on who authored James.
5. Absolutely imagined. A classic example of the looneyism that passed for exegesis in former times. Saying that Ezek 44:1-2 "possibly" teaches the PV of Mary is like saying 1 Cor 3:12-15 "possibly" teaches purgatory. There's no limit to the nonsensical correlations the vain imagination can conjure up.
6. No - they had a word for relatives and (as I demonstrated from the NT, it was the standard word used) and they had a word for cousins. NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE in the NT of someone being called a brother in a context of family relations who was not a brother.
7. Ah that silly fallacy... no one in the Bible is ever called a firstborn in a narrative passage who is an only child. And while firstborn *can* convey ideas of being heir, not necessarily (i.e., with regard to Amnon being David's "firstborn" yet he was a wretch... and when Solomon was crowned it was in bypassing all his older siblings). So while “firstborn” can connote ideas of being heir, it sure wasn’t a shorthand/synonym since it didn’t always communicate that, but when firstborn is actually used in narrative contexts it always means other siblings. Because firstborn doesn’t mean “only child.”
8. But it almost always does, context determines... but since it almost always does, and the idea of a perpetually celibate marriage is without exception odious to Scripture, normal reading should be given priority.
9. Ah, there we go. A baseless, superstitious tradition... glad that you listed this last because it's at the bottom, the foundation. We have numerous instances of the Reformers believing this PV superstition along with other Marian traditions such as calling her "immaculate" and (I believe) Luther was devoted to her until he died. This is no surprise: when there is strong emotional attachment to something, it takes a while for principles to be applied to it.

So again, you come to the Bible with a tradition in mind and demand that the Bible be shown to contradict it. But for someone uncorrupted by the rank and vain Marian traditions, nothing in the Bible hints at or suggests it.

We all, who are Calvinists, do the same thing with each verse in the Bible that seems to give the idea of libertarian freewill or universal atonement via the plain meaning, i.e. Joh. 3:16, 1 Joh. 2:2, and others. That is, since we are working within a certain theological framework, we say things like "the world means the elect," and "all doesn't mean all," etc. In these cases, instead of letting the plain meaning contradict our systems, we redefine the plain to coalesce with them. Which is interesting, because we do so in the name of a system formulated via the very Reformer we are now chiding for his theological blindness.

Ah, thank you so much for bringing this up. I was hoping someone would. There is actually far more scriptural warrant for universal atonement, "Arminianism", than there is for any of these Marian traditions. At least in the case of the former there are Bible verses which actually appear to teach the thing asserted! In the case of the Marian traditions, not a single verse can be brought to bear that actually infers she remained a virgin.

And yes, in these "verses that are problematic for Calvinism" we actually do have to look for contextual/exegetical clues to help us understand what is being meant, and we cross reference the (apparent) teaching of one passage with the teaching of other passages, etc. And we successfully do that, I believe.

But in the case of the Marian traditions? It's not like there's this verse that implies childlessness or perpetual virginity or whatever that we have to then contrast with verses that appear to teach otherwise. Nope, it's all one-sided: the Bible speaks with unanimous voice on this topic, and it is only the muddying voice of manmade tradition that seeks to question it.

 

[No Other Name]

1. There is the question of the age in which Jesus returns back from Egypt (age 4-6) and no siblings are mentioned. Odd for a couple of normal relations.
2. There is the question of why no siblings, but "relatives & acquaintances" were mentioned when he stayed back in the temple (age 11-12.)
3. There is the question of why did Jesus give his mother away to John, if him being God knew his supposed brothers would convert very shortly, and according to Jewish custom it would be their responsibility?
4. There is a question of who authored the book of James, Calvin seems to be taking the position it was the son of Alphaeus, rather than Jesus' kin.
5. There is possible correlation with Mary and Ezek. 44:1-2.
6. Brothers, and sisters, in Jewish culture, could very well mean relative, or cousins.
7. Firstborn, does not have to mean only relative in succession to other siblings.
8. Until, doesnt have to mean that something happened subsequently.
9. And the pre-existing tradition of the Church for 1500 years before the Reformers wrote.

You still don't understand this. Sola Scriptura means we read plainly the Scripture and within the text itself, we pay attention to context clues that signal any different meanings than the usual primary meaning of words.

Let me give an example of an alternative meaning to "until" that is Scripturally based.

When I was challenged on a different meaning for "until", one of my interlocutors pointed me outside Matt. 1:25 and pointed out an example of a different meaning to "heos": Matt. 22:44

where we read:
The
xurao (#3588)LORD
kurios (#2962)said
epo (#2036)unto my
mou (#3450)Lord,
kurios (#2962)Sit
kathemai (#2521)thou on
amunomai (#1537)my
mou (#3450)right hand,
dexios (#1188)
***till heos (#2193) ***
I make
Tithemi (#5087)thine
sou (#4675)enemies
echthros (#2190)thy
sou (#4675)footstool?
hupopodion (#5286)

I agreed to the exception that was given. From eternity, Adonai sits at the right hand of YHWH; there is no change of status here. And every exception to the meaning of "until" always involves God as the referent. Since God does not change, the meaning of the word does not indicate a change of status in Him, even if there is a change of status in us as humans.

This however cannot apply to Joseph in Matt. 1:25.

For anyone to interpret heos as a deviation from the standard definition of "of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until a change of status in time and/or place", it would have to involve context within Scripture.

The historical examples you cited are external speculations that have no basis in Scriptural text, but postulating imaginary scenarios not linked to any textual evidence at all.

Now whether one wants to accept these as viable, that is on them; but one cant act as if the Reformers were just blindly holding on to tradition.

The correct framing of our objection is that some Reformers started with tradition first and then exegeted the text resulting in a blind spot for some. We have also allowed for the fact that this does not detract from the invaluable works they produced in Reformed historical theology. We also allowed that we too have blind spots that time will reveal - say if one pulls up the archived posts of all of us, then there will be none found without some blind spots.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The correct framing of our objection is that some Reformers started with tradition first and then exegeted the text resulting in a blind spot for some. We have also allowed for the fact that this does not detract from the invaluable works they produced in Reformed historical theology. We also allowed that we too have blind spots that time will reveal - say if one pulls up the archived posts of all of us, then there will be none found without blind spots.

I agree with everything you've written... if I may quibble with one word... you said "... started with tradition first and then *exegeted* the text..." I'd suggest that starting with tradition and then trying to handle the text so as to see it in the Bible is a classic example of eisegesis.

 

[No Other Name]

I agree with everything you've written... if I may quibble with one word... you said "... started with tradition first and then *exegeted* the text..." I'd suggest that starting with tradition and then trying to handle the text so as to see it in the Bible is a classic example of eisegesis.

I agree with your edit suggestion.

 

[No Other Name]

I had a blind spot hahahaha

 

[No Other Name]

Oh

 

[No Other Name]

Rich's new formatting allows for multi-posting under 5 minutes

 

[No Other Name]

I could become a PB doctor in no time! hahaha

@Semper Fidelis FYI ... we can multi-post with no time limits now. If you want to fix that back the way it was before. Cheers!

 

[MW]

I must be missing something here?

Perkins held to PV. So yes, you MUST be missing something. He was a Reformed Catholic. The idea of interpreting Scripture outside tradition was not something he would have imagined. That is what the fanatics did.

 

[No Other Name]

Perkins held to PV. So yes, you MUST be missing something. He was a Reformed Catholic. The idea of interpreting Scripture outside tradition was not something he would have imagined. That is what the fanatics did.

WHAT am I missing though? On the basis of the methodology, then either Perkins has Scriptural basis for PV or held to PV sans Scriptural basis. Please elucidate which it is. If there is Scriptural basis for PV, is Perkins the one who published it? Where is this textual basis?

Yet if you again say tradition is an acceptable basis alongside Scripture, then we will have to agree to disagree like how it resolved with @SolaScriptura

 

[MW]

WHAT am I missing though? On the basis of the methodology, then either Perkins has Scriptural basis for PV or held to PV sans Scriptural basis. Please elucidate which it is. If there is Scriptural basis for PV, is Perkins the one who published it? Where is this textual basis?

Yet if you again say tradition is an acceptable basis alongside Scripture, then we will have to agree to disagree like how it resolved with @SolaScriptura

You quoted Perkins and then complained of a view he espoused. Why don't you elucidate why you feel so bold to proclaim you must be right. Perkins didn't come to the Scriptures as if they can automatically be understood in their details with some kind of "obvious" meaning. He understood his place within history. The tradition had taught him humility, if nothing else. Job 12:2-3, "No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you: yea, who knoweth not such things as these?"

 

[No Other Name]

You quoted Perkins and then complained of a view he espoused.

I quoted Beeke quoting Perkins in the context of the methodology of plain preaching for plain Biblical exposition which is the title of his particular section within that excellent volume summarizing Puritan theology.

I asked if Perkins agreed with the methodology but held to PV despite his own methodology. If he did, then he has a blind spot. If he rather used that methodology to prove PV from the text, then he would not have a blind spot. If you cannot answer this, I understand. You still know a lot more than I do.

Why don't you elucidate why you feel so bold to proclaim you must be right.

On the basis of reading Scripture? Because Scripture is the inspired infallible inerrant Word of God and no one should take away or add to what is there.

The tradition had taught him humility, if nothing else. Job 12:2-3, "No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you: yea, who knoweth not such things as these?"

Are you implying I am being prideful and arrogant here?

Please read the quote from Beeke. Please explain how PV can be exegeted, or please explain why PV need not be exegeted but accepted as a belief on a "humble" adherence to tradition and still be considered Sola Scriptura on matters of faith.

I do not understand this at all. How can plain reading for plain exposition be dismissed and when objections raised to its dismissal, accusations of arrogance are cast? How can this be true?

 

[MW]

If he rather used that methodology to prove PV from the text, then he would not have a blind spot. If you cannot answer this, I understand. You still know a lot more than I do.

He would have given the same exegetical answers that have appeared on this thread, which are intended to negate the "dogma" that she must have had normal sexual relations within marriage. These answers recognise the interpretation of Scripture is not so straightforward as some would like to imagine. "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all." The tradition in which Perkins exegeted the Scriptures understood this. It does not have a blind spot in this respect. The traditional doctrine of sola scriptura was not the teaching that is being espoused under that name in this thread. The idea of a straightforward meaning was the doctrine of the fanatics, sectarians, and heretics.

Are you implying I am being prideful and arrogant here?

I am saying (not implying) that I think the catholic and reformed tradition deserves more respect and consideration.

 

[No Other Name]

The tradition in which Perkins exegeted the Scriptures understood this. It does not have a blind spot in this respect. The traditional doctrine of sola scriptura was not the teaching that is being espoused under that name in this thread. The idea of a straightforward meaning was the doctrine of the fanatics, sectarians, and heretics.

I agree that the Puritan principles of exegeting Scriptures does not have a blind spot. I affirm Beeke's quote wholeheartedly and Perkins' portion therein as well. From here, we either disagree or we misunderstand each other. The idea of a straightforward meaning was specifically defined by me in light of this very method that you also affirm. I said in post # 402:

I do so by interpreting "taking words straightforward" as being more fully stated as "taking the most common meaning among the possible meanings of the word unless context leads to more secondary meaning rather than the normal primary meaning".

This is nearly a direct quote from the Beeke quote I added later. This is crucial here. How is "the traditional doctrine of sola scriptura not the teaching that is being espoused under that name in this thread"?

And do you withdraw your casting of our definition of straightforward meaning as "the doctrine of fanatics, sectarians and heretics"? Or do you still affirm my understanding of straightforward meaning as "the doctrine of fanatics, sectarians and heretics"? If so, please explain specifically how my use of plain reading and its role in my interpretation of Matt. 1:25 is unorthodox and potentially dangerous please.