Was Mary Perpetually A Virgin?

[davejonescue]

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:



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.

But this is the thing, Perkins is coming to his positions by the very same things that have already been posted here. To these Reformers and Puritans, these reasons were not pleading, nor eisegesis. They were the framework for their interpretation, much like we as Calvinists interpret "plain scriptures" that contradict it, in light of our theological system and the Reformed tradition. So like you mentioned in a previous thread, whatever you think Perkins was espousing by the quote of his exegetical methods, it must be aligned with what he wrote on the position you are saying such a principle would contradict.

William Perkins

An Exposition of the Symbol or Creed of the Apostles… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 171
“As Mary conceived a virgin, so it may be well thought that she continued a virgin to the end, though we make it no article of our faith. When Christ was upon the cross, he commended his mother to the custody of John; which probably argues that she had no child to whose care and keeping she might be commended. And though Christ be called her firstborn, yet does it not follow that she had any child after him: for as that is called last after which there is none, so that is called the first before which there was none. And as for Joseph, when he was espoused to Mary, he was a man of eighty years old.”

A Golden Chain… (Cambridge, 1600), ch. 18, ‘Of Christ’s Nativity & Office’, pp. 27-28
“The nativity of Christ, is that whereby Mary, a virgin, did after the course of nature and the custom of women [contra in partu], bring forth Christ, that Word of the Father and the Son of David: so that those are much deceived which are of opinion that Christ, after a miraculous manner, came into the world, the womb of the Virgin being shut. Lk. 2:23, ‘Every man-child which first opens the womb, shall be called holy to the Lord.’ The which place of scripture is applied to Mary and our Savior Christ. Hence is it that the Virgin Mary is said Theotokos [God-bearer] to bring forth God, albeit she is not any way mother of the Godhead. For Christ as He is God, is without mother, and as man, without father.
It is convenient to be thought that Mary continued a virgin until her dying day, albeit we make not this opinion any article of our belief:
I. Christ being now to depart the world, committed his mother to the tuition and custody of his disciple John, which it is like He would not have done, if she had had any children, by whom, as custom was, she might have been provided for, Jn. 19:26.
II. It is likely that she who was with child by the Holy Ghost, would not after[ward] know any man.
III. It is agreed of by the Church in all ages.”

A Commentary or Exposition, upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians… (Cambridge, 1604), ch. 1, pp. 61-2
“In that James is called our Lord’s brother [in Gal. 1:19] three things may be demanded:
One, which James this was?
Answer: It was James the son of Alpheus: for he lived 14 years after this, Gal. 2:9, whereas James the son of Zebedeus lived not so long, because he was put to death by Herod.
The second thing is, how James should be the Lord’s brother?
Answer: In scripture, children of the same womb, are brethren: men of the same blood are brethren; as Abram and Lot, Gen. 13:8. Men of the same country are brethren, thus Saul’s countrymen are called his brethren, 1 Chron. 12:2. And James is called our Lord’s brother, not because he was of the same womb, but because he was of the same blood or kindred: for Elie had two daughters, Mary, espoused to Joseph, and Mary Cleophas, who afterward was married to Alpheus, of whom came James here mentioned. James therefore was the cousin-german [first-cousin] of Christ. Therefore Helvideus failed when he went about to infringe the perpetual virginity of the virgin Mary out of this place, as if she had more sons beside Christ.
The third thing is, what benefit James had by being the Lord’s brother?
Answer: He is here called the Lord’s brother only, for distinction’s sake in respect of the other James the son of Zebedeus…”

 

[MW]

How is "the traditional doctrine of sola scriptura not the teaching that is being espoused under that name in this thread"?

I quoted the Westminster Confession. The idea of a straightforward meaning when the meaning is disputed is ... well ... triumphalism. There's no other word for it. You are saying it is plain when it is not.

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.

The fanatics, sectarians, and heretics claim they have Scripture on their side and ignore Christian tradition. They create dogmas out of incidental details. They separate themselves from others as if they alone are holding to the truth and everyone else is blind. And, historically, they have treated Matt. 1:25 in the same naive and straightforward manner as displayed in this thread. It is not reformed and it is far from the reformed doctrine of sola scriptura.

 

[Phil D.]

I’m not convinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary, but this thread proves that the concept of perpetuality is very very real…

 

[SolaScriptura]

Actually it Is consistent with the Reformed principles.

I quoted the Westminster Confession. The idea of a straightforward meaning when the meaning is disputed is ... well ... triumphalism. There's no other word for it. You are saying it is plain when it is not.



The fanatics, sectarians, and heretics claim they have Scripture on their side and ignore Christian tradition. They create dogmas out of incidental details. They separate themselves from others as if they alone are holding to the truth and everyone else is blind. And, historically, they have treated Matt. 1:25 in the same naive and straightforward manner as displayed in this thread. It is not reformed and it is far from the reformed doctrine of sola scriptura.

Actually it IS more consistent with Reformed principles to insist that traditions be established by the Word.

The sheer unmitigated hubris behind calling those of us fanatics is astonishing. Just like the papists did to Luther by trying to sling the Hussite slur at him. 500 years ago they may have thought so, but praise God we’ve grown in our exegetical consistency - so that we no longer believe in silly things like a flat earth or these wretched Marian traditions.

And if one thing is apparent it is that you guys have no qualms with starting with tradition and doing exegetical gymnastics to avoid the plain meaning of at least a half dozen passages. I get it: you’d rather be hermeneutically and systemically inconsistent than suggest favored historic luminaries could have erred in the application of their own principles.

All the argung has been a protracted attempt to that end: to avoid the obvious glaring inconsistency.

Back then their numerous blind spots were excusable. today? Not so much.

Y’all be seriously trying to polish a to make it seem like they were being faithful to sola Scriptura and the principles they espoused. No they were inconsistent.

 

[MW]

Actually it IS more consistent with Reformed principles to insist that traditions be established by the Word.

We've been there and done that. It only needs to be consistent with the word. It's not an article of faith. It's an historic opinion. Although from your POV, which holds the contrary is a dogma, you require Scripture to establish your position, and so you attempt valiantly to make the Scriptures speak your mind ... just like the fanatics.

 

[SolaScriptura]

We've been there and done that. It only needs to be consistent with the word. It's not an article of faith. It's an historic opinion. Although from your POV, which holds the contrary is a dogma, you require Scripture to establish your position, and so you attempt valiantly to make the Scriptures speak your mind ... just like the fanatics.

And from the sermon you shared from Calvin, it was a matter of dogma for him as well. Quit trying to Shuck n Jive: the people who asserted it most strongly attribute fanaticism and heresy and satanic influence eto those who deny those wretched Marian blasphemies which denigrate Christ. And these people had the unmitigated gall to do so on the basis of tradition.

I - and the entire faithful stream of interpretation- at least have the Bible on our side! Not a single verse implies Mary remained a virgin… and I get it, you don’t need a verse to suggest it: tradition says it, and the contrary verses can be read (unnaturally, but read nonetheless) so as to not contradict. You can be normative, I’ll stick with regulative.

You smugly claim that the use of faithful consistent clear exegesis is the same as making the Bible say what I want it to say or “speak my mind.” That’s ridiculous and it sounds like the reasoning of a Jesuit. You denigrate a faithful hermeneutic and it smacks of being unclear about the place of the Bible. And it definitely repudiates the valiant Worms declaration, which I embrace and wrap myself in, because it is the spirit of the Reformation. (as you might happen to know, there are some who prefer to date the reformation from that point… I think that’s unnecessary. I’m willing to date it from 1517, but still).

Quit trying to pretend that you’re on the side of moderation.

 

[retroGRAD3]

The fanatics, sectarians, and heretics claim they have Scripture on their side and ignore Christian tradition. They create dogmas out of incidental details. They separate themselves from others as if they alone are holding to the truth and everyone else is blind. And, historically, they have treated Matt. 1:25 in the same naive and straightforward manner as displayed in this thread. It is not reformed and it is far from the reformed doctrine of sola scriptura.

Unless you are saying that your opponents fall into one of these categories I don't see the point of bringing this up. It seems like a back handed way of poisoning the well.

 

[MW]

Unless you are saying that your opponents fall into one of these categories I don't see the point of bringing this up. It seems like a back handed way of poisoning the well.

I don't have any opponents in this thread. I am not dogmatic. Is it a back-handed way of poisoning the well when Popish traditions are mentioned? It is a question of method. They resemble the fanatics, not the Reformed.

 

[Ploutos]

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:



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.

I might not be fully grasping what Rev. Winzer is getting at, but when he called the straightforward meaning "the doctrine of fanatics, sectarians, and heretics", this is what came to mind for me:

This is my body: transubstantiation.
The Father is greater than I: Arianism.

These are, in some sense, "plain readings" that lead to dangerous heresy.

I've said this in other threads, but one reason I dislike the idea of "plain reading" is not because I think it's totally invalid, but because I think it is used to the exclusion of a vitally important concept that the Reformed tradition can't afford to dispense with: the understanding of Scripture through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Material things are materially discerned and spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Scripture is not interpreted by means of unaided reason, even for believers. It is interpreted by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. "Plain reading" - yes, but plain reading as a doctrine must not go untrammeled free of checks and balances; it's a useful counterweight to the out-of-hand allegorizations of the eras before it but it has to be held in conjunction with other doctrines. The illumination of the Holy Spirit takes us out of the context of our times and out of the presuppositions of our unaided reason.

Too often, I think "plain reading" becomes an excuse to put forward one's interpretive grid as authoritative. Of course, I know some will disagree, but then I don't think I'm guilty of Marian delusions or looney-ism, which I can now add to the amusing list of epithets applied to me on here!

 

[retroGRAD3]

I don't have any opponents in this thread. I am not dogmatic. Is it a back-handed way of poisoning the well when Popish traditions are mentioned? It is a question of method. They resemble the fanatics, not the Reformed.

Now you are equating your opponents with fanatics. Have a discussion if you are going to have a discussion. These types of subtle name calling tactics are beneath you.

 

[No Other Name]

I quoted the Westminster Confession. The idea of a straightforward meaning when the meaning is disputed is ... well ... triumphalism. There's no other word for it. You are saying it is plain when it is not.

This seems wrong to me. On this logic, couldn't an Arminian charge us of "triumphalism" simply because our soteriology is claimed to be plain when it is "not"?

And, historically, they have treated Matt. 1:25 in the same naive and straightforward manner as displayed in this thread. It is not reformed and it is far from the reformed doctrine of sola scriptura.

The treatment of Matt. 1:25 by myself was using the methodology of Puritan preaching I quoted earlier by Beeke. It would be how I would teach the text if or when I ever get the chance. You now claim my interpretation is "naive" and "not reformed" - even "far from the reformed doctrine of sola scriptura".

Will you ever specify and make an actual case here? Please explain how already.

Post automatically merged: Jan 3, 2025

but when he called the straightforward meaning "the doctrine of fanatics, sectarians, and heretics", this is what came to mind for me:

This is my body: transubstantiation.
The Father is greater than I: Arianism.

These are, in some sense, "plain readings" that lead to dangerous heresy.

Ok. But that has nothing to do with this.

Now if he wants to actually engage with the definition given by me (well Beeke) and my use of it in Matt. 1:25, that would be great.

 

[MW]

Now you are equating your opponents with fanatics. Have a discussion if you are going to have a discussion. These types of subtle name calling tactics are beneath you.

I will determine what's beneath me. You worry about your own attitudes -- trying to make opponents of brethren. I haven't called anyone anything. I am pointing out an error that fanatics fall into. It is brotherly to warn of errors. It is not brotherly to read things into their writings.

 

[Ploutos]

Ok. But that has nothing to do with this.

I respectfully disagree. I think it has everything to do with it. It shows that there has to be a limit to the idea of "plain reading".

 

[SolaScriptura]

I might not be fully grasping what Rev. Winzer is getting at, but when he called the straightforward meaning "the doctrine of fanatics, sectarians, and heretics", this is what came to mind for me:

This is my body: transubstantiation.
The Father is greater than I: Arianism.

These are, in some sense, "plain readings" that lead to dangerous heresy.

I've said this in other threads, but one reason I dislike the idea of "plain reading" is not because I think it's totally invalid, but because I think it is used to the exclusion of a vitally important concept that the Reformed tradition can't afford to dispense with: the understanding of Scripture through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Material things are materially discerned and spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Scripture is not interpreted by means of unaided reason, even for believers. It is interpreted by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. "Plain reading" - yes, but plain reading as a doctrine must not go untrammeled free of checks and balances; it's a useful counterweight to the out-of-hand allegorizations of the eras before it but it has to be held in conjunction with other doctrines. The illumination of the Holy Spirit takes us out of the context of our times and out of the presuppositions of our unaided reason.

Too often, I think "plain reading" becomes an excuse to put forward one's interpretive grid as authoritative. Of course, I know some will disagree, but then I don't think I'm guilty of Marian delusions or looney-ism, which I can now add to the amusing list of epithets applied to me on here!

So I’m sure you’re being sincere, but those desiring to obfuscate try to confuse things by (pretending) that “plain meaning” has to take metaphor, or idiom as flat speech. It pretends we cannot distinguish between genres of Scripture, etc. But WE always engage in careful exegesis.

We’re able to discern otherwise you’re saying we can’t know and need an authoritative interpreter. Which is to bring us back under the tyranny of Rome.

This is why I wrote early on that we must repudiate this incipient quasi-magisterium to which some would seek to enslave us.

No thanks - it has been demonstrated by a handful of you here that the luminaries to whom you believe we should genuflect at times simply pass along the papist traditions without warrant or defense.

 

[MW]

This seems wrong to me. On this logic, couldn't an Arminian charge us of "triumphalism" simply because our soteriology is claimed to be plain when it is "not"?

The Westminster Confession distinguishes the way of salvation. Having made this an issue over sola scriptura do you now want to make this a salvation issue as well? A sense of proportion is necessary.

 

[No Other Name]

I respectfully disagree. I think it has everything to do with it. It shows that there has to be a limit to the idea of "plain reading".

How specifically? Engage with my definition and Beeke's quote and how plain reading for plain exposition has a limit in specifically being applied for the purposes of establishing beliefs.

 

[No Other Name]

The Westminster Confession distinguishes the way of salvation. Having made this an issue over sola scriptura do you now what to make this a salvation issue as well? A sense of proportion is necessary.

Stay focused please. I am not making a salvation issue here. I am doubting your application of "triumphalism".

You act as if we made a specious claim and did not make a Biblical case for our position of non-PV. We even made a case for what plain reading for exposition entails. This is not simply declaring that our position is obvious and cannot fairly be reduced to that.

Also, you claimed my interpretation is "naive" and "not reformed" - even "far from the reformed doctrine of sola scriptura".

Will you ever specify and make an actual case here? Please explain how already.

Post automatically merged: Jan 3, 2025

And yet, I swear I used the methodology Beeke published while doing so. Something is not right here. I do not understand what is happening.

 

[MW]

Stay focused please. I am not making a salvation issue here. I am doubting your application of "triumphalism".

You act as if we made a specious claim and did not make a Biblical case for our position of non-PV. We even made a case for what plain reading for exposition entails. This is not simply declaring that our position is obvious and cannot fairly be reduced to that.

Also, you claimed my interpretation is "naive" and "not reformed" - even "far from the reformed doctrine of sola scriptura".

Will you ever specify and make an actual case here? Please explain how already.

You brought up the Arminians and salvation. The Westminster Confession specifically addresses this: "yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Your "biblical" case is not biblical. Your "plain reading" is not plain. The reformed tradition makes that much clear. This should weigh on you to some degree. Yet, for some reason, it doesn't.

You are making up a dogma for us all to believe on the warrant of Scripture. I have no "dogma" (!) in the fight. You can believe what you please. But once you start to bring divine authority and impose your belief on others you will need to have more than a straightforward reading which is under dispute.

 

[No Other Name]

I am going to give this one last try here. You said

They create dogmas out of incidental details.

Can you please explain how exegeting the words used in the text is an incidental detail?

Can you please explain rather than claim?

historically, they have treated Matt. 1:25 in the same naive and straightforward manner as displayed in this thread.

Can you please specify how our interpretation is "naive" and "not reformed" when we specifically used Puritan methods of exegesis and interpretation?

This should weigh on you to some degree. Yet, for some reason, it doesn't.

My frown face above was genuine. But I have no evidence to give on that one I suppose.

But once you start to bring divine authority and impose your belief on others you will need to have more than a straightforward reading which is under dispute.

How am I imposing my belief on you? I thought this was a discussion among different viewpoints. I do have more than a straightforward reading. I also made a case why the primary meaning of "heos" is more sensible than any secondary meaning.

If you disagree, fine.

If it is beneath you to explain how and why you disagree, well ok.

But your charges of my position are unfounded. (I almost added in my opinion, but since you will literally not explain how, it seems unnecessary to qualify my last sentence).

 

[SolaScriptura]

The image that keeps popping in my head is the beginning of Fiddler on the Roof where Tevya is dancing around his cart singing, “Tradition!”

 

[No Other Name]

But this is the thing, Perkins is coming to his positions by the very same things that have already been posted here. To these Reformers and Puritans, these reasons were not pleading, nor eisegesis. They were the framework for their interpretation, much like we as Calvinists interpret "plain scriptures" that contradict it, in light of our theological system and the Reformed tradition. So like you mentioned in a previous thread, whatever you think Perkins was espousing by the quote of his exegetical methods, it must be aligned with what he wrote on the position you are saying such a principle would contradict.

William Perkins

An Exposition of the Symbol or Creed of the Apostles… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 171
“As Mary conceived a virgin, so it may be well thought that she continued a virgin to the end, though we make it no article of our faith. When Christ was upon the cross, he commended his mother to the custody of John; which probably argues that she had no child to whose care and keeping she might be commended. And though Christ be called her firstborn, yet does it not follow that she had any child after him: for as that is called last after which there is none, so that is called the first before which there was none. And as for Joseph, when he was espoused to Mary, he was a man of eighty years old.”

A Golden Chain… (Cambridge, 1600), ch. 18, ‘Of Christ’s Nativity & Office’, pp. 27-28
“The nativity of Christ, is that whereby Mary, a virgin, did after the course of nature and the custom of women [contra in partu], bring forth Christ, that Word of the Father and the Son of David: so that those are much deceived which are of opinion that Christ, after a miraculous manner, came into the world, the womb of the Virgin being shut. Lk. 2:23, ‘Every man-child which first opens the womb, shall be called holy to the Lord.’ The which place of scripture is applied to Mary and our Savior Christ. Hence is it that the Virgin Mary is said Theotokos [God-bearer] to bring forth God, albeit she is not any way mother of the Godhead. For Christ as He is God, is without mother, and as man, without father.
It is convenient to be thought that Mary continued a virgin until her dying day, albeit we make not this opinion any article of our belief:
I. Christ being now to depart the world, committed his mother to the tuition and custody of his disciple John, which it is like He would not have done, if she had had any children, by whom, as custom was, she might have been provided for, Jn. 19:26.
II. It is likely that she who was with child by the Holy Ghost, would not after[ward] know any man.
III. It is agreed of by the Church in all ages.”

A Commentary or Exposition, upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians… (Cambridge, 1604), ch. 1, pp. 61-2
“In that James is called our Lord’s brother [in Gal. 1:19] three things may be demanded:
One, which James this was?
Answer: It was James the son of Alpheus: for he lived 14 years after this, Gal. 2:9, whereas James the son of Zebedeus lived not so long, because he was put to death by Herod.
The second thing is, how James should be the Lord’s brother?
Answer: In scripture, children of the same womb, are brethren: men of the same blood are brethren; as Abram and Lot, Gen. 13:8. Men of the same country are brethren, thus Saul’s countrymen are called his brethren, 1 Chron. 12:2. And James is called our Lord’s brother, not because he was of the same womb, but because he was of the same blood or kindred: for Elie had two daughters, Mary, espoused to Joseph, and Mary Cleophas, who afterward was married to Alpheus, of whom came James here mentioned. James therefore was the cousin-german [first-cousin] of Christ. Therefore Helvideus failed when he went about to infringe the perpetual virginity of the virgin Mary out of this place, as if she had more sons beside Christ.
The third thing is, what benefit James had by being the Lord’s brother?
Answer: He is here called the Lord’s brother only, for distinction’s sake in respect of the other James the son of Zebedeus…”

Brother, I am so sorry.

I actually did not see you posted this until right now. I will read this later when I feel better. Glancing at it, it seems you are earnestly trying to communicate something to me here which I very much appreciate. Even if I end up disagreeing with whatever you wrote here, I am genuinely happy you are trying to talk with me, not at me.

 

[No Other Name]

I respectfully disagree. I think it has everything to do with it. It shows that there has to be a limit to the idea of "plain reading".

Wait. A point you made jumped in my head and I almost missed it because I was distracted.

Your examples of fanatical "plain readings" was based on verses that - on the face of them - taught transubstantianism and Arianism.

But this is not true of Puritan plain exposition.

The heretical examples you cited are guilty of violating at least 3 rules of the Puritan methodology of plain exposition Beeke published and I used. Namely:

"2) They (Puritans) 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."

 

[SolaScriptura]

Wait. A point you made jumped in my head and I almost missed it because I was distracted.

Your examples of fanatical "plain readings" was based on verses that - on the face of them - taught transubstantianism and Arianism.

bingo. And what’s interesting to me is that contrary to these examples, there’s no verse that “on the face of it” appears to teach anything related to these Marian traditions. Truly, the traditions surrounding Mary are utterly baseless.

So they’re comparing apples and oranges in an apparent attempt to claim that we can’t know what the Bible means apart from tradition.

 

[MW]

Can you please explain rather than claim?

This is my best attempt to explain.

Perkins as quoted: "It taught a few profitable points of doctrine gathered from the natural sense of the text." Doctrine. Things to be believed. Things plainly taught by Scripture to be embraced as a part of the Christian faith. But it is disputed that this is the natural sense of the text or that it ought to be taught as a doctrine. In fact, Perkins himself taught otherwise. The reformed tradition taught otherwise. The catholic tradition taught otherwise.

Was Mary perpetually a virgin? The catholic and reformed tradition answers: Scripture does not decide, but it may be piously believed. One party on this thread says: Scripture decides; she was not perpetually a virgin. She was expected to have sexual relations as a part of marriage so we MUST believe she was not a virgin. In fact, this is a matter of sola scriptura -- "firstborn," "until," "brothers" is straightforward and clear; to deny it is to deny sola scriptura.

Nevertheless, the reformed tradition does not class this within the type of things to be gathered as doctrine from the natural sense of the text.

 

[MarrowMan]

And people thought I was being cranky the other day, lol.

Post automatically merged: Jan 3, 2025

This is my best attempt to explain.

Perkins as quoted: "It taught a few profitable points of doctrine gathered from the natural sense of the text." Doctrine. Things to be believed. Things plainly taught by Scripture to be embraced as a part of the Christian faith. But it is disputed that this is the natural sense of the text or that it ought to be taught as a doctrine. In fact, Perkins himself taught otherwise. The reformed tradition taught otherwise. The catholic tradition taught otherwise.

Was Mary perpetually a virgin? The catholic and reformed tradition answers: Scripture does not decide, but it may be piously believed. One party on this thread says: Scripture decides; she was not perpetually a virgin. She was expected to have sexual relations as a part of marriage so we MUST believe she was not a virgin. In fact, this is a matter of sola scriptura -- "firstborn," "until," "brothers" is straightforward and clear; to deny it is to deny sola scriptura.

Nevertheless, the reformed tradition does not class this within the type of things to be gathered as doctrine from the natural sense of the text.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the TLDR of your point is:

The Reformed tradition did/does not use "plain readings" to establish incidentals as doctrine/dogma.

 

[Ploutos]

How specifically? Engage with my definition and Beeke's quote and how plain reading for plain exposition has a limit in specifically being applied for the purposes of establishing beliefs.

There has been a lot of heated rhetoric - of which I have been part, and without regret, because this has been a very stimulating and informative discussion from which I have profited a great deal. However, I think this conversation is at the point where it has jumped the shark.

One thing being consistently missed is the very strong asymmetry in this thread. This is not primarily a debate over the perpetual virginity. This is primarily a debate over how seriously the notion of perpetual virginity may be entertained. One side is saying (for the most part) "We don't really believe in PVM but it's worthwhile stopping to think about why so many significant people in our tradition believed it". Probably Rev. Winzer is the one who comes closest to believing it and yet all he has said is that it may be believed as a pious belief (not as a matter of dogma). The other side is saying "You don't agree with us enough!" and attaching a kind of double-separation mentality to it. You, Brad, are not doing that, but Ben is, and the list of denigrations and insults hurled by him at people who do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary is rather lengthy at this point. I don't really care what kind of sarcasm Calvin resorted to; nobody here is supporting Calvin on that point. All that is being said is that there are reasons why Calvin and others held to that view and the response is that no, there is no acceptable room to entertain this doctrine at all ever, that any whiff of it is Mariolatry, looney-ism, blind adherence to tradition, Romanism, etc. etc.

Wait. A point you made jumped in my head and I almost missed it because I was distracted.

Your examples of fanatical "plain readings" was based on verses that - on the face of them - taught transubstantianism and Arianism.

But this is not true of Puritan plain exposition.

The heretical examples you cited are guilty of violating at least 3 rules of the Puritan methodology of plain exposition Beeke published and I used. Namely:

"2) They (Puritans) 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."

I would make two points in response. First, did not some of those same Puritans believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Second, heretics have answers to all of these things. Rome, to choose the best-defended example, has a very strong, detailed, and scholarly case for defending its doctrine of transubstantiation, and they would on paper affirm all three of the points that you made. It doesn't mean that Puritans who believed in PVM were heretics nor does it mean we should throw out their rules about plain exposition.

 

[MW]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the TLDR of your point is:

The Reformed tradition did/does not use "plain readings" to establish incidentals as doctrine/dogma.

I think I know what you are asking but I don't see this as being an essential part of the discussion. I'm inclined to say that it doesn't on the basis that the idea of plain readings presupposes a system of doctrine taught by Scripture and the inclusion of incidentals takes place within a tradition of exegesis. I can state unequivocally that the attempt to devise doctrines from incidental statements while ignoring the tradition was never the way that the Reformed engaged in exegesis or dogmatics. But that still allowed a rich and full discussion of many different kinds of incidental points.

 

[SolaScriptura]

One thing being consistently missed is the very strong asymmetry in this thread. This is not primarily a debate over the perpetual virginity. This is primarily a debate over how seriously the notion of perpetual virginity may be entertained.

I beg to differ. This is primarily a debate concerning "upon what authority may a tradition be established" and "who has the burden of proof: those who deny a tradition, or those seeking to establish it." But in a weird twist it has taken on a "can we even know what the Bible is saying apart from Tradition" vibe.

You, Brad, are not doing that, but Ben is, and the list of denigrations and insults hurled by him at people who do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary is rather lengthy at this point. I don't really care what kind of sarcasm Calvin resorted to; nobody here is supporting Calvin on that point.

I just want to say: I - and those holding my view - have been the repeated object of citations in which our persons are called fanatics, heretics, even satanic. I have been told I don't have the epistemological basis for even identifying the books in my Bible's table of contents. I've been told that my method is unReformed because I have the audacity to suggest that traditions must be established by the Word - which thankfully is the method employed in the Reformed world on matters of importance to us. I've been told that I can't be "dogmatic" even as the dogmatism of favored historical persons is hurled at me, I've been called naive, triumphalist (whatever that is supposed to mean) arrogant making scripture speak my mind.... all for insisting on a straightforward hermeneutic.

I have been attacked personally, repeatedly, and that doesn't matter to you.

Where have I done so? Where have I "hurled insults"? Sure, I've denigrated the Marian traditions... and yes, I wholeheartedly believe that this was a massive blind spot (thankfully all but extinct among the faithful) in the past, and that anyone who affirms that method is fundamentally inconsistent... but where have I come close to "attacking" my opponents the way I have been attacked? Fanatical, naive, under satanic influence?

But for anyone who has felt attacked by me, and that includes you - beyond being told that you're "reasoning like a papist" or "you're being inconsistent" - I'm very sorry.

Post automatically merged: Jan 3, 2025

All that is being said is that there are reasons why Calvin and others held to that view and the response is that no, there is no acceptable room to entertain this doctrine at all ever, that any whiff of it is Mariolatry, looney-ism, blind adherence to tradition, Romanism, etc. etc.

And this comes back to what this is about: upon what basis may a tradition be established, and who has the burden of proof: the one seeking to establish it, or the one who denies it? Without so much as a single verse establishing it, these are but terms to denote its utter baselessness.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I can state unequivocally that the attempt to devise doctrines from incidental statements while ignoring the tradition was never the way that the Reformed engaged in exegesis or dogmatics.

Except we aren't "devising doctrines" - we're refuting dangerous traditions - doctrines - which were established by, well, tradition. And focusing on key words and drilling down on precision in exegesis is precisely a hallmark of Reformed hermeneutics! I mean, we're famous for being punctilious!

 

[MW]

And this comes back to what this is about: upon what basis may a tradition be established, and who has the burden of proof: the one seeking to establish it, or the one who denies it? Without so much as a single verse establishing it, these are but terms to denote its utter baselessness.

A tradition is established on the basis that it is held successively generation by generation. It is not binding. We have already made clear that it is like the discussion of other historical matters that are not taught in Scripture but might have an indirect bearing on it.

A dogma, OTOH, requires the testimony of Scripture. This is what God intended to teach and this is what the conscience is bound to accept on the authority of God teaching it.

Concerning your accusations of being attacked, the most I said of you is that you were being triumphalistic, and I told you what I meant. If you want to personalise things that were not directed at your person that is your choice.