Was Mary Perpetually A Virgin?

[SolaScriptura]

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.

When a person who denies it is called fanatical, and under satanic influence... it's a bit more than non-binding.

 

[SolaScriptura]

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.

and so you attempt valiantly to make the Scriptures speak your mind ... just like the fanatics.

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.

I mean this is just some of it, brother.

 

[MW]

When a person who denies it is called fanatical, and under satanic influence... it's a bit more than non-binding.

Have you lost track of the discussion? It is not for denying it. It is for insisting on the opposite as a dogma, as necessary to hold to sola scriptura. Nor was anyone "called" fanatical for this. It was suggested that a certain methodology of requiring "straightforward" readings was a common feature of the fanatics. I don't know where "satanic influence" has come from.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Have you lost track of the discussion?

Maybe, I dunno. My wife and son are throwing up sick, I had a funeral today (it might cause you to chuckle to learn that I loosely followed the funeral service from the 1662 BCP).

All I know is the Bible rules and baseless tradition drools!

 

[MW]

Maybe, I dunno. My wife and son are throwing up sick, I had a funeral today (it might cause you to chuckle to learn that I loosely followed the funeral service from the 1662 BCP).

All I know is the Bible rules and baseless tradition drools!

Understandable. I hope your loved one's start to feel better and things ease up for you.

I also employ things from the BCP. It has some good things in it.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I'm curious what, from a pastoral view, is (or would be or has been) the profit of holding to PV?

In other words, if a minister held to this view, and would (I presume) have to bring this view/interpretation out when preaching through the passages bandied about in this thread, what application(-s) would be made for the congregation? How would the PV interpretation of Scripture help, encourage, and build up the saints?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Really? Where do you get the idea that aside from the virgin birth, that anything about their life was different?.

I would think that everything about their life would be different, don't you? It's like asking how a city is any different "aside from" having an a-bomb dropped on it. Personally, if I received word from an angel that God Himself was going to be a part of my immediate family and that my future wife would be the vessel by which He enters the world, I think it would pretty much turn my whole entire world upside down. And I am not so sure how I would feel about normal marital relations afterward.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings from Post #458,

I have been following this thread loosely, and I am surprised by the number of posts on this subject.
I am trying to be serious, but I'll admit that I have smiled a few times at the interest and views on both sides of a question to which no one can know the answer.

So, although I have weighed both sides for maybe a whole hour, my only takeaway was that one view has an abundance of problems with Biblical Law.

But my view? I will keep to myself, at least for now.

Ed

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I would think that everything about their life would be different, don't you?

That's based on fallible human reason though. But by all of the available scriptural accounts, apart from the virgin birth, everything else about the family life of Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and the other children of Joseph and Mary is totally normal.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Just some random rumination:

1. I was sitting on my back porch last night, smoking a stogie and enjoying some 16 year Lagavulin, reading fan theories about the Christmas movie "Home Alone" - some of these fan theories are ridiculous, but some seem astonishingly plausible - and it donned on me: doctrines such as the "perpetual virginity" of Mary are essentially "fan theories": one starts with a conclusion and then looks back at the source material for "bread crumbs" - whether it be interpreting perplexing interchanges or scenes as evidence or straight up reinterpreting scenes or interchanges in light of the conclusion. Preachers: fan theories and movies. That's a pretty good illustration for what's happening with these unbiblical doctrines and traditions and how they are read back into the biblical storyline.
And it's funny how some "fan theories" simply will not die. To change movies: Die Hard. Both the director and Bruce Willis have publicly said it is "NOT a Christmas movie" ... but what do those two jokers know? Many (including yours truly) believe it is a Christmas movie. Same with some of these traditions and doctrines about Mary.

2. It is interesting that the curated illustrative sermon of John Calvin posted earlier in this thread has Calvin clearly communicating quite strongly about the perpetual virginity of Christ and of what he thinks of those who oppose the idea - one would say he's being... dogmatic. Yet when one compares that sermon with what Calvin wrote in his commentaries, the contrast is stark. Maybe the sermon was preached at a very different point in his life from when he wrote the commentary on the Gospels, maybe the transcriber of his sermon made an error, maybe he got worked up in the moment, who knows. But the contrast is both real and stark, one would not be overstating to say they're almost contradictory. But still, for my purposes here I'll grant that the views communicated in the sermon represent the real full-throated views of John Calvin. Ok, we know for fact that the Catholics did and do view as dogma the doctrines and traditions concerning Mary. We know that Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and (apparently) Calvin treated them as dogma as well - with Bullinger going so far as to enshrine Marian beliefs in the 2nd Helvetic Confession. Roll out from the Reformers a couple generations and things start shifting a bit, though as has been posted, continental theologians still number Mary deniers amongst fanatics and heretics... but keep rolling a few more generations and the tone shifts even more so that less vitriol is being spewed towards those who refuse to believe the Marian doctrines. And eventually it shifted so that those want to affirm the Marian doctrines want to eke out a "pious belief" status and the staunch refusal to give an inch to the Marian tradition is called "dogmatic." What happened?

3. I'll tell you what happened: the rise and spread of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic happened. It simply withers these types of views. Even in this thread, most casual readers observe that the biblical argument against PV is like a steamroller.

Re-discovered by Luther, as it was taught and disseminated, it became widely used in the Reformation all the way down to today. And just as the Mississippi River looks remarkably different at the headwaters than it does as it passes St. Louis, so too it took time for the implications of this hermeneutic to be applied and ensconced. Here's a decent article by Ligonier about it: historical-grammatical Hermeneutics. It focuses on the "literal" or "plain sense" reading of the material. As they say in another article, "If we want to find the one, true meaning of the text, we must follow the “grammatico-historical method.” This hermeneutical approach investigates the original cultural setting of the text and focuses on grammar and syntax in order to understand what the author of the text meant when he wrote to his original audience. Only this method can give us the original meaning of the biblical text. Otherwise, we end up with a dangerous subjectivism that denies truth itself."
Now, the closer one was to the re-discovery of this hermeneutic, the more charity we can show them in the various blind spots they had (such as in the matter of these Marian doctrines) ... but over time, as the historical-grammatical hermeneutic shaped the very epistemological matrix so that by the time of the Westminster Assembly they repudiated the long-standing notion of multiple senses (sensus plenior) of Scripture. The death knell was sounded for the various holdovers of the superstitious worldview.

As we know WCF chapter 1.6, 1.9, and 1.10 are all powerful statements concerning the Scripture and the regulative nature of it for our beliefs and practices.

In his commentary on the Confession 1.6, as noted by someone previously, AA Hodge writes, "That, while the Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice, and while nothing is to be regarded as an article of faith to be believed, or a religious duty obligatory upon the conscience, which is not explicitly or implicitly taught in Scripture" - this is to assert what I have previously said "an article of faith to be believed" (which is precisely how the Church has historically, and to the present day, treats the doctrines of Mary - as dogma) must be established by the word for it to be held forth as something to be held as a "pious belief."

But then he says this - and this is where he gets into the rigorousness demanded by a good and proper hermeneutic: "nevertheless they (the Scriptures) do not descend in practical matters into details, but, laying down general principles, leave men to apply them in the exercise of their natural judgment, in the light of experience, and in adaptation to changing circumstances, as they are guided by the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. This liberty, of course, is allowed only within the limits of the strict interpretation of the principles taught in the Word, and in the legitimate application of those principles, and applies to the regulation of the practical life of the individual and of the Church, in detailed adjustments to changing circumstances."

In short, we see that even private opinions are obligated to be subjected to the principles of proper interpretation.

And his last point of commentary regarding 1.7 is likewise telling, "Those Churches which have most faithfully disseminated the Scriptures in the vernacular among the mass of the people have conformed most entirely to the plain and certain sense of their teaching in faith and practice; while those Churches which have locked them up in the hands of a priesthood have to the greatest degree departed from them both in letter and spirit."

And here Hodge communicates that conforming to the "plain and certain sense" of Scripture is a good thing, which of course is the product of the grammatical historical method.

And finally, in regards to 1.10 Hodge writes these words, which reflect a truly Reformed - that is: the principles of the Reformation have had time to be fully fleshed out - perspective on the place of Scripture, "The Protestant doctrine is, (1) That the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice;" (Boom. Full stop. But I'll go on.) "2) Negatively, that there is no body of men qualified or authorized to interpret the Scriptures or to apply their teachings to the decision of particular questions in a sense binding upon their fellow Christians. (3) Positively, that the Scriptures are the only authoritative voice in the Church." (I can practically hear the anguished cries of "this is solo scriptura!" No... its good biblical Sola Scriptura.) "which is to be interpreted and applied by every individual for himself, with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow-Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind those only who voluntarily profess them; and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach."

And as it stands, as the historical-grammatical hermeneutic arose, so too (conversely) did superstitious traditions and doctrines diminish. And the truly Reformed ought admit nothing that is not established and upheld by positive Scriptural warrant. This includes the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and all the other Marian blasphemies.

And your "private beliefs?" Yeah, they're subject to the Word of God, too. So if your "private pious belief" is not derived by sound hermeneutics, then your "private pious belief" is a superstition, so please keep it to yourself.

As it is, there are millions upon millions of people who believe as dogma the various lies about Mary. And these dogmas are both blasphemous in general and they undermine the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ in particular. They must be treated accordingly.

 

[davejonescue]

Just some random rumination:

1. I was sitting on my back porch last night, smoking a stogie and enjoying some 16 year Lagavulin, reading fan theories about the Christmas movie "Home Alone" - some of these fan theories are ridiculous, but some seem astonishingly plausible - and it donned on me: doctrines such as the "perpetual virginity" of Mary are essentially "fan theories": one starts with a conclusion and then looks back at the source material for "bread crumbs" - whether it be interpreting perplexing interchanges or scenes as evidence or straight up reinterpreting scenes or interchanges in light of the conclusion. Preachers: fan theories and movies. That's a pretty good illustration for what's happening with these unbiblical doctrines and traditions and how they are read back into the biblical storyline.
And it's funny how some "fan theories" simply will not die. To change movies: Die Hard. Both the director and Bruce Willis have publicly said it is "NOT a Christmas movie" ... but what do those two jokers know? Many (including yours truly) believe it is a Christmas movie. Same with some of these traditions and doctrines about Mary.

2. It is interesting that the curated illustrative sermon of John Calvin posted earlier in this thread has Calvin clearly communicating quite strongly about the perpetual virginity of Christ and of what he thinks of those who oppose the idea - one would say he's being... dogmatic. Yet when one compares that sermon with what Calvin wrote in his commentaries, the contrast is stark. Maybe the sermon was preached at a very different point in his life from when he wrote the commentary on the Gospels, maybe the transcriber of his sermon made an error, maybe he got worked up in the moment, who knows. But the contrast is both real and stark, one would not be overstating to say they're almost contradictory. But still, for my purposes here I'll grant that the views communicated in the sermon represent the real full-throated views of John Calvin. Ok, we know for fact that the Catholics did and do view as dogma the doctrines and traditions concerning Mary. We know that Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and (apparently) Calvin treated them as dogma as well - with Bullinger going so far as to enshrine Marian beliefs in the 2nd Helvetic Confession. Roll out from the Reformers a couple generations and things start shifting a bit, though as has been posted, continental theologians still number Mary deniers amongst fanatics and heretics... but keep rolling a few more generations and the tone shifts even more so that less vitriol is being spewed towards those who refuse to believe the Marian doctrines. And eventually it shifted so that those want to affirm the Marian doctrines want to eke out a "pious belief" status and the staunch refusal to give an inch to the Marian tradition is called "dogmatic." What happened?

3. I'll tell you what happened: the rise and spread of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic happened. It simply withers these types of views. Even in this thread, most casual readers observe that the biblical argument against PV is like a steamroller.

Re-discovered by Luther, as it was taught and disseminated, it became widely used in the Reformation all the way down to today. And just as the Mississippi River looks remarkably different at the headwaters than it does as it passes St. Louis, so too it took time for the implications of this hermeneutic to be applied and ensconced. Here's a decent article by Ligonier about it: historical-grammatical Hermeneutics. It focuses on the "literal" or "plain sense" reading of the material. As they say in another article, "If we want to find the one, true meaning of the text, we must follow the “grammatico-historical method.” This hermeneutical approach investigates the original cultural setting of the text and focuses on grammar and syntax in order to understand what the author of the text meant when he wrote to his original audience. Only this method can give us the original meaning of the biblical text. Otherwise, we end up with a dangerous subjectivism that denies truth itself."
Now, the closer one was to the re-discovery of this hermeneutic, the more charity we can show them in the various blind spots they had (such as in the matter of these Marian doctrines) ... but over time, as the historical-grammatical hermeneutic shaped the very epistemological matrix so that by the time of the Westminster Assembly they repudiated the long-standing notion of multiple senses (sensus plenior) of Scripture. The death knell was sounded for the various holdovers of the superstitious worldview.

As we know WCF chapter 1.6, 1.9, and 1.10 are all powerful statements concerning the Scripture and the regulative nature of it for our beliefs and practices.

In his commentary on the Confession 1.6, as noted by someone previously, AA Hodge writes, "That, while the Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice, and while nothing is to be regarded as an article of faith to be believed, or a religious duty obligatory upon the conscience, which is not explicitly or implicitly taught in Scripture" - this is to assert what I have previously said "an article of faith to be believed" (which is precisely how the Church has historically, and to the present day, treats the doctrines of Mary - as dogma) must be established by the word for it to be held forth as something to be held as a "pious belief."

But then he says this - and this is where he gets into the rigorousness demanded by a good and proper hermeneutic: "nevertheless they (the Scriptures) do not descend in practical matters into details, but, laying down general principles, leave men to apply them in the exercise of their natural judgment, in the light of experience, and in adaptation to changing circumstances, as they are guided by the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. This liberty, of course, is allowed only within the limits of the strict interpretation of the principles taught in the Word, and in the legitimate application of those principles, and applies to the regulation of the practical life of the individual and of the Church, in detailed adjustments to changing circumstances."

In short, we see that even private opinions are obligated to be subjected to the principles of proper interpretation.

And his last point of commentary regarding 1.7 is likewise telling, "Those Churches which have most faithfully disseminated the Scriptures in the vernacular among the mass of the people have conformed most entirely to the plain and certain sense of their teaching in faith and practice; while those Churches which have locked them up in the hands of a priesthood have to the greatest degree departed from them both in letter and spirit."

And here Hodge communicates that conforming to the "plain and certain sense" of Scripture is a good thing, which of course is the product of the grammatical historical method.

And finally, in regards to 1.10 Hodge writes these words, which reflect a truly Reformed - that is: the principles of the Reformation have had time to be fully fleshed out - perspective on the place of Scripture, "The Protestant doctrine is, (1) That the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice;" (Boom. Full stop. But I'll go on.) "2) Negatively, that there is no body of men qualified or authorized to interpret the Scriptures or to apply their teachings to the decision of particular questions in a sense binding upon their fellow Christians. (3) Positively, that the Scriptures are the only authoritative voice in the Church." (I can practically hear the anguished cries of "this is solo scriptura!" No... its good biblical Sola Scriptura.) "which is to be interpreted and applied by every individual for himself, with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow-Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind those only who voluntarily profess them; and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach."

And as it stands, as the historical-grammatical hermeneutic arose, so too (conversely) did superstitious traditions and doctrines diminish. And the truly Reformed ought admit nothing that is not established and upheld by positive Scriptural warrant. This includes the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and all the other Marian blasphemies.

And your "private beliefs?" Yeah, they're subject to the Word of God, too. So if your "private pious belief" is not derived by sound hermeneutics, then your "private pious belief" is a superstition, so please keep it to yourself.

As it is, there are millions upon millions of people who believe as dogma the various lies about Mary. And these dogmas are both blasphemous in general and they undermine the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ in particular. They must be treated accordingly.

The thing is, scripture nowhere indicates specifically that Mary had other children. The contra-conclusion to Perpetual Virginity arises from a "possible" interpretation of certain words that can denote either relatives, cousins, or siblings. The Reformers and Puritans who held to PV understood this, and thus came to their conclusions by that, as well as other arguments such as the passing on of Mary to John rather than her supposed other sons, and the questionable authorship of the book of James to someone other than Jesus' biological brother. And other arguments that have been posted in this thread ad nauseam. Yet, you keep ignoring this and want to propose the idea that people like Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Turretin, Ussher, Perkins, Leigh, and others are pulling their position out of a hat, rather than taking "all" the points they consider pertinent into consideration.

Lastly, I dont think Calvin is contradicting himself via his commentary on Luke 1:34; especilly given what he says on the subject in other parts of his commentaries on other books, like Gal. and Matth. Like I pointed out, it simply looks like he is commenting on the idea that Mary went into betrothal (pre-angelic appearance) with the idea to live celibate, which itself would be a mockery to the marriage vow. He is not dealing with Mary post-angelic visitation or virgin-birth, nor is he considering the idea of her perpetual viginity absurd, which is further emphasized by his continued use, even within that commentary, of the term "Virgin, and Blessed Vigin."

And just like Calvin mentioned, after considering all that he was able to muster on the subject, is a definitive conclusion cannot be known, because a specific citation of Mary giving birth to other children is not given. So those who try to push for a position defintively, either way, just like to argue and be contentious. But what these Reformers and Puritans did say, is that it can be held as a pious, though not a doctrinal position. And if people want to share it, they are no more barred from doing so then these great men of the faith that did so before us.

You talk about "fan theories" even at the expense of the originators explaining what is intended, yet the framers of the Reformed tradition are telling you what they feel is meant by these texts, and you hold to your own conclusion as knowing better? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The thing is, scripture nowhere indicates specifically that Mary had other children.

This right here, folks.

The Bible literally does, even naming them.
But when you refuse to let “mother, brothers, and sisters” mean “mother, brothers, and sisters” this is what you get.

But once again: the starting point is backward. Doctrines must be established by the Word, so we must have positive warrant from Scripture to suggest I should believe contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. This is confessional and consistent with the principles espoused by the Reformation.
I’ve explained hermeneutically, make sure to read twice. Thrice if necessary.

As to founders... in 1776 Thomas Jefferson penned the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Are we required to understand "all men are created equal" in the same way that Jefferson (and the Congress who ratified the Declaration) took it? I say NO.

In fact, I'd say that Jefferson penned sublime words which comport to reality, but the fact was he wasn't in a place to understand "all men are created equal" in its fullest expression.

In the same way, the Reformers set in motion principles - that they sometimes held to with inconsistency themselves - but once settled and fully mature, those principles result in a different (clearer, more internally consistent) understanding of certain things.

In the same way, the hermeneutic that they recovered (not invented!)... once fully ensconced... well, it has led to glorious recovery of true doctrine!

 

[darrellmaurina]

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.

I continue to ask: If we apply the "plain meaning of the text" without bringing in other texts, how do those of us who are paedobaptists reply to those who insist that the Greek word "baptizo" MUST mean dipped in water, and that based on the baptisms of which we are certain who was baptized, most and perhaps all followed a profession of faith?

I have never argued in this thread that the perpetual virginity of Mary is something we can be required to believe from the text. My argument has been that there is a very long history of teaching that supports that belief, and it's a belief that was held by most of the Reformers (sometimes using very severe language) when they were quite willing to reject other beliefs identified with Roman Catholic doctrines, including those concerning Mary.

I believe Baptists are brothers because they can make a reasonable case for their beliefs from the Bible without denying inerrancy. I disagree with their case and believe Baptist teaching is more compatible with an Arminian view of soteriology than a Reformed view, but I'm well aware that Bunyan and Spurgeon and Mohler will disagree, and have plenty of arguments as to why it's possible to hold to a covenantal view of children while still saying baptism must follow profession.

The items cited by @davejonescue, and I'm deliberately piggybacking on his post because he, unlike @MW (Rev. Matt Winzer) is a Baptist, may not be persuasive to everyone. I freely grant that the most logical reading of the relevant texts is that Christ's brothers were biological brothers. But it's not the only reading, it's not the reading the church has taught for most of its history, and at minimum, we can say that it's legitimate for a confessionally Reformed person to hold to the perpetual virginity of Christ because most and perhaps all of those in the Reformation era held that position.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I'm not sure if you have noticed but Calvin regularly called her the Virgin or the holy Virgin, even long after the birth.

There is no attempt to co-opt him. The sermon is very clear about what Joseph was choosing. He was depriving himself of a wife.

I'd like to ask some questions to both Rev. Winzer and to @SolaScriptura (Pastor Ben).

1. What would you do if someone came to your presbytery seeking ordination who held the opposite view from what you hold?

2. What would you do if someone already ordained (other than John Calvin) preached the relevant sermon by Calvin in a church of your presbytery?

3a. If the answer is, "They would be wrong, but they would be within the Reformed tradition so I have to accept that people can read the same text and come to different conclusions," then the two of you actually don't disagree.

3b. If the answer is that you would vote against their ordination or begin some disciplinary process based on that sermon, my next question will be to cite something in the confessions that backs up your belief that discipline is warranted, or that the belief is a disqualifier for ordination.

Note that I am **NOT** asking if you believe that belief in or rejection of the perpetual virginity of Christ makes someone a Christian or a heretic. I'm asking if you believe the position is unconfessional or otherwise grounds for discipline. I couldn't pass an exam in either of your presbyteries because I would take what SHOULD be unacceptable exceptions to the WCF on the authority of higher courts beyond the local eldership. My view is fine (and quite common) in the Dutch Reformed world, but it's incompatible with Presbyterian polity, and I know that, and I respect my Reformed brothers who follow their confessions which make some things confessional that others do not.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I'm curious what, from a pastoral view, is (or would be or has been) the profit of holding to PV?

In other words, if a minister held to this view, and would (I presume) have to bring this view/interpretation out when preaching through the passages bandied about in this thread, what application(-s) would be made for the congregation? How would the PV interpretation of Scripture help, encourage, and build up the saints?

Fair point. My response is that it avoids needless offense.

To be clear, I do not teach the perpetual virginity of Mary. I teach that where Scripture is silent, we should be also, and there is insufficient evidence to say with certainty whether Mary remained a virgin permanently or not, so we shouldn't insist on the issue, but we do need to recognize that most of the Reformation-era leaders taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. A common "hillbilly translation" of the regulative principle that I use is this: "If you can't find it in the Bible, you shouldn't find it in the church." Baptists and broad evangelicals understand that, and will listen. Catholics can understand that's a core principle of what we believe.

Roman Catholics, at least older ones and those today in traditional parishes, have typically been taught that Protestants "blaspheme the Blessed Virgin Mary," deny the plain teaching of God's Word, and reject principles that even the Reformers held. That is, at best, an overly broad brush. We aren't all Elaine Pagels, teaching that Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier and that Christians invented the Virgin Birth to "explain" the problematic parentage of their leader, Protestant liberalism has done great damage, and so has ignorant evangelicalism. A friend in the Roman Catholic clergy sent me an article yesterday from a Roman Catholic magazine citing a survey of American evangelicals that "found that 73 per cent agreed with the statement that 'Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God,' and 43 per cent agreed with the statement 'Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.'" He knows that's not me, but he also knows Reformed people are quite different from the typical evangelical.

(The article, by the way, was on the plans by the Roman Catholic Church to commemorate the 1700th anniversary this year of the Nicene Council. Why did I not connect the dots that Nicea was in 325 AD and this is its 1700th anniversary? Are we in the Reformed world planning to emphasize the history of one of our creeds? We probably should.)

God help us if those numbers are true about what evangelicals believe about the person and work of Christ, and they probably are. I've seen those numbers before (the survey was from 2022) and I've been truly surprised at the "I've never heard that before" reaction to people watching my messages on the Heidelberg Catechism online, going line by line through the Scriptures on the Trinity. We have problems in the Reformed world, but as they say, "that ain't one of them!"

Catholic clergy are usually well educated, or at least are supposed to be. Many laymen are not. If I can get a seriously committed Catholic to listen to me long enough to convince him that I'm not an ignorant uneducated broad evangelical who knows nothing of church history and interprets my Bible without any reference to church tradition (our Reformed confessions function very much like the creeds in the early church by being authoritative statements of what Scripture does and does not say), I may be able to get him to spend some time reading St. Augustine's Confessions and try to create some cognitive dissonance, arguing that the most important "Doctors of the Church" held views very different from what their local parish priest is probably teaching.

For a priest, that's probably going to end with him saying, "Okay, you Reformed people are much better than most Protestants, but you still have problems," and then citing Trent. He has to affirm Trent or leave his church. For a lay Catholic, it is entirely possible that many of his or her objections to Protestantism are based not on what we actually believe but based on what Protestant liberals believe, or ignorant comments by some evangelical somewhere who was teaching things without having been properly taught what Scripture says.

Undoing the damage caused by Protestant liberalism can take a tremendous amount of time for a seriously committed Catholic who believes that most of the problems in his own church are caused by liberals who have bought into Protestant heresies. Saying, "We don't believe that, it's not what Calvin or Luther taught, and German liberalism from the 1800s is the problem, not the Reformation" can work.

For what it's worth, I did my senior thesis on John Henry Cardinal Newman. I know the Catholic arguments for their position on the role of tradition and church authority and development of doctrine. Obviously I disagree or I'd rejoin virtually the entire Maurina family and "return to Rome." I am a Calvinist because I believe that's what the Bible teaches, and on the important things about soteriology, is what St. Augustine and most of the early church taught.

 

[MW]

I'd like to ask some questions to both Rev. Winzer and to @SolaScriptura (Pastor Ben).

1. What would you do if someone came to your presbytery seeking ordination who held the opposite view from what you hold?

2. What would you do if someone already ordained (other than John Calvin) preached the relevant sermon by Calvin in a church of your presbytery?

If the man is called to the ministry and he owns the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith his views on indifferent things is of no consequence to me.

That might be a good place for me to bid this thread adieu.

 

[darrellmaurina]

If the man is called to the ministry and he owns the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith his views on indifferent things is of no consequence to me.

That might be a good place for me to bid this thread adieu.

I think we're on the same page.

I am not aware of any of the Reformation-era or Puritan-era confessions in which the perpetual virginity of Mary is either required or forbidden. There may be one, and if so, I will apologize for my ignorance. But if some doctrinal matter isn't addressed in the confessions, I need **REALLY** strong evidence to make it a requirement for ordination or a ground for discipline.

Yes, exceptions exist. We're not Roman Catholic, but there are external similarities between the way the Magisterium works in the Roman Catholic Church and the way confessions and synodical decisions and church orders work in confessional Calvinism and Lutheranism. That's not because we are somehow "residually Catholic" -- it's because we're Protestants, not Anabaptists, and we value church history and the consensus of church leaders before us who often knew a lot better than we do about matters since their churches were often in far better condition than ours.

The key difference between Protestant confessionalism and the Roman Catholic Magisterium is that our confessions, synodical decisions, and church orders -- usually in that arrangement of prioritization -- are always subject to Scripture and the church does not, contrary to John Henry Cardinal Newman's "Development of Doctrine" hypothesis, have some sort of guidance by the Holy Spirit separate from God's revealed Word.

That means two things: 1) at least in principle, even a confession can be revised if it's found to be unbiblical, and synodical decisions and church orders often are, and 2) there are things which aren't addressed in the confessions because they weren't controversial at the time the confessions were written, but are addressed in Scripture, so sometimes that means a synodical decision needs to me made that "X" teaching is contrary to Scripture and cannot be held by ministers or elders in a specific denomination.

A very practical example of how this works is the Federal Vision. I spent decades arguing that the Federal Vision, while I disagreed with it, is within the boundaries of the Three Forms of Unity though contrary to the Westminster Standards. (There is a VERY long history of vast differences among the Dutch Reformed on the covenant, and for better or for worse, rightly or wrongly, the defenders of Norman Shepherd and of the Federal Vision claimed they were in the same theological line as Klaas Schilder and others like him in the Netherlands.) It was only after most of the major NAPARC denominations decided that the Federal Vision was outside the bounds not only of the Westminster Standards but also of the Three Forms of Unity that I changed my position and said, "These brothers know better than I do about many other things, and I should trust that they know better than me on this also."

To my knowledge that hasn't been done with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, either for or against. If anything, it looks like the consensus of the early Reformers would be in favor of it.

It seems to me that apart from something in the confessions that I have somehow missed, or a long history of synodical decisions by confessionally Reformed denominations, both views should be tolerated because this is an issue on which Scripture can be legitimately read either way.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I am not aware of any of the Reformation-era or Puritan-era confessions in which the perpetual virginity of Mary is either required or forbidden. There may be one, and if so, I will apologize for my ignorance. But if some doctrinal matter isn't addressed in the confessions, I need **REALLY** strong evidence to make it a requirement for ordination or a ground for discipline.

It's required in the 2nd Helvetic Confession, which is why the Swiss writers like Turretin and Heidegger have a section defending it in their systematics.

Thankfully it's not required in the Westminster Standards or the 3FU.

 

[darrellmaurina]

It's required in the 2nd Helvetic Confession, which is why the Swiss writers like Turretin and Heidegger have a section defending it in their systematics.

Thankfully it's not required in the Westminster Standards or the 3FU.

Extremely helpful. I should have known this but did not. Surprisingly, it's never been brought up to me by Roman Catholics. Perhaps they don't know this part of the Reformed confessional tradition because it isn't part of either of the two major Reformed traditions today, i.e., that of Westminster of the Three Forms of Unity.

I would not support making the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a confessional matter. I don't see the evidence either way from Scripture to be certain enough to mandate it.

I wonder if Scott Hahn and other formerly Reformed people have written on this section of the Second Helvetic Confession. I don't spend a lot of time reading ex-Calvinists who have become Catholics and prefer to focus on the Apostolic Fathers and their successors in the early church prior to and immediately following Nicea, which necessarily means reading Anglicans and Catholics since they spend more time in that era of church history than most modern Calvinists.

I may be wrong on this, but I think the Hungarian Reformed use the Second Helvetic and the Heidelberg as their confessional standards, which would mean that Viktor Orban, as well as Hungarian conservative Protestants in their church world, may have some interesting opinions on this subject. The Hungarian Reformed are probably the only sizeable group of people left who confess the Second Helvetic, and like any of the other historic mainline European denominations, they have significant issues.

 

[No Other Name]

Surprisingly, it's never been brought up to me by Roman Catholics.

What has never been brought up? PV?

In my everyday experience with papists, the doctrine of her perpetual virginity is not even slightly the basis for her veneration. Celibacy is pretty common in Romish practices. If priests and nuns and bishops and cardinals and archbishops can all do it their whole lives and over centuries of time, it is not so remarkable to them as it to our religious practice. Other Marian doctrines like immaculate conception et al are the true basis of her "veneration" (translate: worship with self-deluded plausible deniability that the act of prayer to her is "not" in fact worship).

I would not support making the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a confessional matter.

I am glad to read this. As I gather no one would support that in this thread. I am curious why 2nd Helvetic disagreed with us.

I don't see the evidence either way from Scripture to be certain enough to mandate it.

I am not going to re-open this debate. I am working on a new post on the subject of sola scriptura and its role in theological falsifiability. That will probably be a new thread.

 

[darrellmaurina]

What has never been brought up? PV?

Sorry about the lack of clarity here. I was responding to the comment about perpetual virginity of Mary being in the Second Helvetic Confession when I wrote this:

"Extremely helpful. I should have known this but did not. Surprisingly, it's never been brought up to me by Roman Catholics. Perhaps they don't know this part of the Reformed confessional tradition because it isn't part of either of the two major Reformed traditions today, i.e., that of Westminster of the Three Forms of Unity."

My point was that I know a number of Roman Catholics who point out that Calvin and other reformers supported the perpetual virginity of Mary, but none have mentioned that was in the Second Helvetic Confession. I should have known that myself, but I didn't.

 

[Edward]

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.

Let's blame guys like John Wycliffe and Martin Luther for causing that problem and putting the Bible in the vernacular and letting everyone read the plain language instead of reserving the scriptures to the trained priests of the Roman Catholic church who could interpret and tell the citizens what it says.

 

[MW]

Let's blame guys like John Wycliffe and Martin Luther for causing that problem and putting the Bible in the vernacular and letting everyone read the plain language instead of reserving the scriptures to the trained priests of the Roman Catholic church who could interpret and tell the citizens what it says.

I'm finished with this thread but this is a gross misuse of Luther. Read Luther's opinion in his Works, vol. 22. He held the "brothers" were cousins. So much for the "straightforward reading." If you want to know what he thought of translating, and how difficult it really is, he tells you himself in his work on translating.

 

[Edward]

I'm finished with this thread

Well, I thought the thread should have ended a dozen or so pages ago. It's not like anything new has really been developed in the last 300 - 400 posts. Some folks hold to the original languages having been improperly translated; some hold that the original has been properly translated into English, and some appeal to the traditions of the church. Frankly a poll would have been as edifying after the initial flurry.

 

[moral necessity]

Corpus reformatorum: Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia

www.google.com.au

AI translator -- as is; no changes:

"And notably, it is said that he did not know the Virgin until she had given birth to her first Son. By this, the Evangelist means that Joseph did not take his wife to live with her, but to obey God and to fulfill his duty towards Him. It was neither for carnal love, nor for profit, nor for any other reason that he took his wife: but it was to obey God, and to show that he accepted the grace that was offered to him: as it was also a good that could not be sufficiently valued. Here is what we have to remember. Now, there have been some, fantastical ones, who have wanted to gather from this passage that the Virgin Mary had other children besides the Son of God, and that Joseph later lived with her: but that is folly. For the Evangelist did not wish to recount what happened afterward: he only wants to declare Joseph's obedience and also to show that he had been well assured and duly informed that it was God who had sent His Angel to him. He did not therefore live with her, he did not have her company. And there we see that he did not regard her person: for he deprived himself of a wife. He could have married another, since he could not enjoy the woman he had married: but he preferred to give up his right and abstain from marriage (while still being married), he preferred (he says) to remain thus to devote himself to the service of God, rather than to consider what would have pleased him more.

He has forgotten all these things in order to fully submit to God. And besides, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. Not that there was a second or a third: but the Evangelist looks to the preceding one. And Scripture speaks thus, naming the firstborn, even though there is no second. We therefore see the intention of the Holy Spirit: and yet, to indulge in these foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture, which should be useful to us for edification, as St. Paul says. And besides, when men are thus restless, and have itching ears for new speculations, the devil must possess them so much that they become hardened, and they cannot be brought back to the right path without causing more trouble to heaven and earth than they maintain their errors and dreams with a diabolical obstinacy. Therefore, we must be sober to receive the doctrine given to us to accept the Redeemer sent to us by God the Father, and knowing His virtue, we learn to fully adhere to Him."

"Other translations I have seen of Calvin's sermon come in the context of this particular debate. By choosing AI the hope was to take bias out of it. That is why I said "as is" -- to show this is what it produced without any influence from the debate." - MW


With respect, couldn't AI translations be biased?
They reflect the prejudices of the data that they learn from.
It's admitted that they lack cultural understanding, carry the risk of losing nuances, tone, and style, and potentially alter the author's original message.
It's generally agreed that a human translator is required to ensure accuracy.

It would be nice to have a translation from a Calvin scholar, as I'm sure we would all agree.

Thank you for all you do, Matthew...
Blessings!

 

[SolaScriptura]

For any who are interested... Richard Muller, in the 2nd volume of PRRD (which is all about the Bible) has a good section on the development of how Scripture was interpreted and exegeted.

If you wonder how we got from certain Reformers still so epistemologically and more importantly emotionally connected to their late Medieval context that they could refer to Mary as "immaculate" to where we are today in which the faithfully Reformed repudiate such notions, read it.

 

[No Other Name]

If you wonder how we got from certain Reformers still so epistemologically and more importantly emotionally connected to their late Medieval context that they could refer to Mary as "immaculate" to where we are today in which the faithfully Reformed repudiate such notions, read it.

I would love to but I do not own it.

I had been asking over and over for the hermeneutics principles that account for traditions and their input in how to directly interpret texts like Matt. 1:25. How does that work exactly? SHOW how. EXPLAIN how Matt. 1:25 reads with PV as a "pious belief". Take out "until" and interchange it with its definition. I can do that as a change in status. I cannot see how that can be done with the secondary meaning that does not involve a change in the status quo. How would that "until" read? There was never a reply.

In all my hermeneutics books, I had never found any such instructions for how to interpret while considering for traditional beliefs that were "not dogma" but "pious". (these include Silva, Goldsworthy, Dennis Johnson and Beeke's collections of Puritan exegetes).

No demonstration was offered by any of my interlocutors. Just quotes showing various luminaries believed it followed by specious claims about how we interpreted the Bible that were thrown out there:

1) We were committing "bald appeal to human reason"

2) we seemed to be imagining we have more of the Holy Spirit than Calvin et al

3) my methodology (not mine but the Puritans) was akin to the methodology of "fanatics, sectarians and heretics".

finally 4) by interpreting Matt. 1:25 in the manner I did, I was - in fact (somehow) - the one being dogmatic.

Get that? If I bowed my head and accepted Calvin et al allowing for a belief that is not specified anywhere by Scripture, then I would not be dogmatic?

Of all the threads I have had ongoing debates with, I was always satisfied with the natural conclusions of all of them (mostly agreeing to disagree - but a feeling that mutual understanding and respect was gained by all I discussed with). This even includes EP, political threads, and baptism and covenant theology threads.

This thread is the lone exception.

This one bothers me still.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I would love to but I do not own it.

I had been asking over and over for the hermeneutics principles that account for traditions and their input in how to directly interpret texts like Matt. 1:25. How does that work exactly? SHOW how. EXPLAIN how Matt. 1:25 reads with PV as a "pious belief". Take out "until" and interchange it with its definition. I can do that as a change in status. I cannot see how that can be done with the secondary meaning that does not involve a change in the status quo. How would that "until" read? There was never a reply.

In all my hermeneutics books, I had never found any such instructions for how to consider traditional beliefs that were "not dogma" but "pious". (these include Silva, Goldsworthy, Dennis Johnson and Beeke's collections of Puritan exegetes).

No demonstration was offered by any of my interlocutors. Just quotes showing various luminaries believed it followed by specious claims about how we interpreted the Bible that were thrown out there:

1) We were committing "bald appeal to human reason"

2) we seemed to be imagining we have more of the Holy Spirit than Calvin et al

3) my methodology (not mine but the Puritans) was akin to the methodology of "fanatics, sectarians and heretics".

finally 4) by interpreting Matt. 1:25 in the manner I did, I was - in fact (somehow) - the one being dogmatic.

Get that? If I bowed my head and accepted Calvin et al allowing for a belief that is not specified anywhere by Scripture, then I would not be dogmatic?

Of all the threads I have had ongoing debates with, I was always satisfied with the natural conclusions of all of them (mostly agreeing to disagree - but a feeling that mutual understanding and respect was gained by all I discussed with). This even includes EP, political threads, and baptism and covenant theology threads.

This thread is the lone exception.

This one bothers me still.

Yeah, the specious hermeneutic employed - assuming the traditional doctrine is valid unless it can be absolutely air-tightedly disproved by the Bible - is an affront to the Reformational principle of Sola Scriptura and the regulative nature of Scripture. The attempt to provide biblical wiggle room for a most impious Church tradition is glaring - and just because those people who were in the early stages of coming to grips with the grammatical historical hermeneutic held to PV (and other Marian doctrines) is no excuse for its perpetuance. That the Reformers held to it (PV) and other atrocious Marian doctrines illustrates the point that they were brilliant men used of God to begin the work of Reformation, but they - as much as the work they stated - were in need of continued refinement. Thankfully as the theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical principles grabbed hold, we've arrived to where we are.

Much is made about how (based on one verse in the LXX where Lot is referred to as Abraham's brother) that we must throw up our arms and we have no clue in all of Scripture when someone is actually a brother or merely a "relative." Nevermind that it was demonstrated that the word for "relative" is - as a matter of fact - the word used in the NT as a general word for relative, etc. But its also true for all the verses: the Bible plainly teaches that Mary had other children.

And another thing I don't get is the apparent interest in currying favor or admiration or approval of papists. Their views of Mary are blasphemous and idolatrous and as such absolutely not an inch should be given to them on the subject. And it is precisely because of how Mary trumps Christ in the practical devotion of many papists that the plain text of Scripture must be asserted to drive home that she was merely an ordinary woman who was used in an extraordinary way.

 

[MW]

With respect, couldn't AI translations be biased?

I want to leave this thread, but I don't want to be rude and ignore your question. I meant "bias" in relation to myself. It couldn't be said that I manipulated this quotation for the advantage of what I was arguing. I simply pasted it as I found it. But yes, AI is dependent on garbage in garbage out. However, you will find from others who have translated it that this is an accurate rendering. The problem is that they only produce this quotation for the purpose of establishing what Calvin taught on this subject. Over and out!

 

[moral necessity]

I want to leave this thread, but I don't want to be rude and ignore your question. I meant "bias" in relation to myself. It couldn't be said that I manipulated this quotation for the advantage of what I was arguing. I simply pasted it as I found it. But yes, AI is dependent on garbage in garbage out. However, you will find from others who have translated it that this is an accurate rendering. The problem is that they only produce this quotation for the purpose of establishing what Calvin taught on this subject. Over and out!

No worries...thank you for replying!

Blessings!