Perpetual Virginity?

[GraceAmbassador]

I hope I am not opening a can of worms here, but, as it is obvious, I have been reading a lot about Church History and the thinking of those "who came before us" (to avoid calling them "fathers"). As such sometimes I come up with information that drives me to think that is OURS and not THEIRS ("those who came before us, of which we don't speak of here"), the generation whom God has given full revelation of His Gospel, so it is incumbent upon us to proclaim such PURE GOSPEL.

One of the information that I came up with, that caused me brain flatulence is this:

John Calvin was less emphatic in his open support of the idea, and neither flatly accepted or rejected it.[64] He cautioned against the idea of "impious speculation" on the topic of perpetual virginity.[69] However, Calvin rejected arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity based on the mention in Scripture of brothers of Jesus that were interpreted to imply that Mary had other children.[70]

After reading it, I pursued a few more quotes from the early "you know who" and "voilá", surely enough, not a few of them bluntly defended the perpetual virginity of Mary and present some "apparent" very good reasons for such.

Beyond the Virgin Conception, I could not care less as to Mary's fate. I think that in the Epistles of Paul and the other apostles is demonstrated that she faded away. So, to me is immaterial and I don't know to what extent the Gospel message is affected if one believes the fable that Mary remained a virgin PROVIDED THAT THEY DON'T AFFIRM THAT SHE IS A CO-REDEMPTRIX, CO-ADVOCATRIX, and CO-MEDIATRIX (or even dominatrix), and that she is powerful enough "that if she would ask for the devil to be redeemed, she would be obliged by "her" son Jesus", as the papist lies go.

I don't want to IRRITATE anyone here with this issue, thus my injection of "black humor", but, other than writing and telling me that "this is the whore teaching, the papists devilish lies absorbed by the reformers" etc., as this I already know and affirm, let me ask you the question:

Does anyone here have any confirmation that up to his later years, Calvin did believe that Mary remained a perpetual virgin? Can you provide quotes. Note: Up to latter years.
The reason for it to be up to his latter years is that I am fully aware that the papists quote Calvin conveniently during his pre-reformation time, except that they don't tell us that such quote is from that period; and the intention of such deception is to make us believe that Calvin up to his twilight years endorsed the worst papists lies thus slandering him.

Anyway, again, if you want to barf after reading this post, do barf, it may be good to you, but, after brushing your teeth, if you have the answer and the evidence within the scope I request, would you share it with me?

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

I think the claim is probably nonsense; sometimes the papal teachers also quote the early Luther to support the notion that he taught Augustinian soteriology--like his 1515 [approx] commentary on Romans.

It would certainly take a lot of research to find anything in later Calvin to support such a notion.

The Bible is clear re: Joseph "he knew her not UNTIL". That should end any controversy about it. The notion that any married couple should refrain from sexual activity to honor a special Divine purpose is destructive and denies the ordinance of marriage itself.

[GraceAmbassador]

I can't remember (and I don't want to remember either) a Roman Catholic Web Site that I accessed once that had numerous quotes from Calvin without indicating the period of the quotes. Such quotes in their very few words, without even context, had quotes from Protestants, including Calvin, and using the quotes to draw the conclusion that "even the so called reformers agreed with the position of the "Church" on this, that, or the other", when "this, that and the other" was something totally opposed to what we know these protestants taught.

You know this 18th century quote: "We should not believe in most quotes we read in the Internet because it is very hard to find supporting evidence and difficult to check the source". - Abraham Lincoln (I found this quote on the Internet).

It is like the old logical problem: "If a Cretan tell you, ALL CRETANS are liars, WOULD YOU BELIEVE HIM?" - If not all, most quotes from Roman Catholics about Protestants supporting their doctrines is false because the source is false. In this much whoever wrote the book of James is right: "Does the same fountain, at the same time, set forth bitter and sweet water."

I continue to research, however.

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Oecolampadius was considered to be a brilliant Protestant theologian, who conversed with Johannes Eck, Philipp Melanchthon and was Professor of theology at the University of Basel.[2] As a theologian, he did not have the clamour of Luther, Zwingli or John Calvin, but he became a trusted religious leader. He was respected even among Catholic scholars of his time and was quoted over forty years after his death by the Jesuit St. Peter Canisius in his work De Maria Virgine. [3] With Zwingli he represented the Swiss at the Marburg Colloquy. His views on the Eucharist upheld the metaphorical against the literal interpretation of the word "body," but he asserted that believers partook of the sacrament more for the sake of others than for their own, though later he emphasized it as a means of grace for the Christian life. To Luther's doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's body he opposed that of the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in the church. His views on the Eucharist prompted Luther to publish several sermons on the subject in his 1526 The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics. He did not minutely analyse the doctrine of predestination as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did, contenting himself with the summary "Our Salvation is of God, our perdition of ourselves." Calvin held his work in high regard, and through his writings and his influence in Basel (where Calvin wrote his first edition of the Institutes), Oecolampadius served as an intermediary between the humanism of Erasmus and the hermeneutics of Calvin.[4]
Theologically he was to considered to be close to Zwingli, with whom he shared a friendly attitude towards Mary and Marian veneration. He is considered an example of Protestant Marian piety of his time, largely in light of his sermons. He calls Mary the mediatrix or mediator (Mittlerin) of all graces, to whom the Lord had entrusted the treasure of Grace Thesaurus gratiarum. [3] Oecolampadius borrowed from Radulfus Ardens (d. 1200) and others the image of Mary as the neck who mediates all graces of Christ (the Head) to his mystical body, the church. This view was defended in the 20th century by Gabriel Roschini, and more generally, by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis as official doctrine of the Catholic Church.[3]

MEDIATRIX????

One of my heroes, oh NO!!!
Say it ain't so! I did consider the source but I have no reason not to believe this...

One more reason for me to believe that in spite of all the good these people brought in correcting some of the papist pagan errors (which sadly did not include the introduction of a goddess), they maintained enough of the paganism for me to be reminded of the words of the one who taught the pure Gospel of Christ:

Galatians 5:9 "A LITTLE LEAVEN LEAVENS THE WHOLE LUMP."

Living and learning!

[Saint Nicholas]

Brother Milt,

The issue of “ex Maria semper virgine” is indeed a can of worms. I thank you for bringing this topic once again to this forum. It was a can of worms even for the “fathers”. There were some who opposed Mary's ever (perpetual) virgin status, and some who supported the notion. For those concerned who these “fathers were” please ask. I will be happy to cite them.

Both East and West of course sided with the “fathers” who supported the“perpetual virginity” of Mary.

Romes theological necessity for this dogma is quite interesting, however would take a considerable amount of time on my part to expound.

Rome's heavy reliance on “tradition” is quite evident in the “ Second Vatican Council” document “Dei Verbum”

Not only does this official document of the Papacy consider “Sola Scriptura” a gross error, but continues to reiterate the necessity of understanding Mary's virginity ante partum, in partu, and post partum, in what they believe to be a supremely wise arrangement of God whereby Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium work together under the action of the Holy Spirit to communicate the truth about Mary to successive generations of Christians (cf. Dei Verbum, no. 10). Henceforth all dogmatic and doctrinal errors we would impute to Rome are easily dismissed by her and further buttressed with the false notion of “Tradition” and “Magisterium”.

Similar to the most excellent statement you made in the Paradox thread “When you don't understand, don't accept, or cannot see the "light", or WANT TO MAKE LIGHT OF ANY DOCTRINE FOR POPULARITY SAKE, simply scream BLOODY PARADOX AND MYSTERY!” Rome would add “simply scream TRADITION AND MAGISTERIUM!”

On the issue of Protestantism and the early reformers, sadly to say SOME did not expel this falsehood.

THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION Chapter 11:

“We also believe and teach that the eternal Son of the eternal God was made the Son of man, from the seed of Abraham and David, not from the coitus of a man, as the Ebionites said, but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever virgin Mary, as the evangelical history carefully explains to us (Matt., ch. 1). And Paul says: "He took not on him the nature of angels, but of the seed of Abraham." Also the apostle John says that whoever does not believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is not of God. Therefore, the flesh of Christ was neither imaginary nor brought from heaven, As Valentinus and Marcion wrongly imagined.”

In the below Latin version of the above, we see ex Maria semper virgine

4Eundem quoque æterni Dei æternum Filium credimus et docemus hominis factum esse filium, ex semine Abrahæ atque Davidis, non ex viri coitu, quod Ebion dixit, sed conceptum purissime ex Spiritu Sancto, et natum ex Maria semper virgine: sicut diligenter nobis historia explicat evangelica (Matt. i. ). Et Paulus ait: Nullibi angelos adsumit, sed semen Abrahæ (Heb. ii. 16). Joannes item Apostolus, qui non credit, Jesum Christum in carne venisse, ex Deo non est (1 Joh. iv. 3). Caro ergo Christi nec phantastica fuit, nec cœlitus adlata, sicuti Valentinus et Marcion somniabant. [bolding added]

The reformers were not infallible. Neither is the Pope when speaking “ex cathedra”. So for all reading this post, don't expect the early reformers to have expelled in their short life span all the heresies that took centuries to develop. Consider the religious culture they were born unto. Rome and Orthodoxy were the only beasts in town. They came out from Rome to a large degree theologically and politically.

I respect the men who boldly spoke against this beast, and died at her hands.

With this said, we should all take heed to another statement in that same Helvetic Confession

Chapter 2:
Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred mattersas far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures,but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement. [bold and underlined added]

This not only applies to the “fathers” but to all confessions. Even the Protestant ones.

Continue your research dear brother Milt.

Simul justus et peccator,

Nicholas

[GraceAmbassador]

Brother Milt,

The issue of “ex Maria semper virgine” is indeed a can of worms. I thank you for bringing this topic once again to this forum. It was a can of worms even for the “fathers”. There were some who opposed Mary's ever (perpetual) virgin status, and some who supported the notion. For those concerned who these “fathers were” please ask. I will be happy to cite them.

Both East and West of course sided with the “fathers” who supported the“perpetual virginity” of Mary.

Romes theological necessity for this dogma is quite interesting, however would take a considerable amount of time on my part to expound.

Rome's heavy reliance on “tradition” is quite evident in the “ Second Vatican Council” document “Dei Verbum”

Not only does this official document of the Papacy consider “Sola Scriptura” a gross error, but continues to reiterate the necessity of understanding Mary's virginity ante partum, in partu, and post partum, in what they believe to be a supremely wise arrangement of God whereby Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium work together under the action of the Holy Spirit to communicate the truth about Mary to successive generations of Christians (cf. Dei Verbum, no. 10). Henceforth all dogmatic and doctrinal errors we would impute to Rome are easily dismissed by her and further buttressed with the false notion of “Tradition” and “Magisterium”.

Similar to the most excellent statement you made in the Paradox thread “When you don't understand, don't accept, or cannot see the "light", or WANT TO MAKE LIGHT OF ANY DOCTRINE FOR POPULARITY SAKE, simply scream BLOODY PARADOX AND MYSTERY!” Rome would add “simply scream TRADITION AND MAGISTERIUM!”

On the issue of Protestantism and the early reformers, sadly to say SOME did not expel this falsehood.

THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION Chapter 11:

“We also believe and teach that the eternal Son of the eternal God was made the Son of man, from the seed of Abraham and David, not from the coitus of a man, as the Ebionites said, but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever virgin Mary, as the evangelical history carefully explains to us (Matt., ch. 1). And Paul says: "He took not on him the nature of angels, but of the seed of Abraham." Also the apostle John says that whoever does not believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is not of God. Therefore, the flesh of Christ was neither imaginary nor brought from heaven, As Valentinus and Marcion wrongly imagined.”

In the below Latin version of the above, we see ex Maria semper virgine

4Eundem quoque æterni Dei æternum Filium credimus et docemus hominis factum esse filium, ex semine Abrahæ atque Davidis, non ex viri coitu, quod Ebion dixit, sed conceptum purissime ex Spiritu Sancto, et natum ex Maria semper virgine: sicut diligenter nobis historia explicat evangelica (Matt. i. ). Et Paulus ait: Nullibi angelos adsumit, sed semen Abrahæ (Heb. ii. 16). Joannes item Apostolus, qui non credit, Jesum Christum in carne venisse, ex Deo non est (1 Joh. iv. 3). Caro ergo Christi nec phantastica fuit, nec cœlitus adlata, sicuti Valentinus et Marcion somniabant. [bolding added]

The reformers were not infallible. Neither is the Pope when speaking “ex cathedra”. So for all reading this post, don't expect the early reformers to have expelled in their short life span all the heresies that took centuries to develop. Consider the religious culture they were born unto. Rome and Orthodoxy were the only beasts in town. They came out from Rome to a large degree theologically and politically.

I respect the men who boldly spoke against this beast, and died at her hands.

With this said, we should all take heed to another statement in that same Helvetic Confession

Chapter 2:
Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred mattersas far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures,but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement. [bold and underlined added]

This not only applies to the “fathers” but to all confessions. Even the Protestant ones.

Continue your research dear brother Milt.

Simul justus et peccator,

Nicholas

Thank you for the answer!

I found a couple of Roman Catholic sites that explain the virginity of Mary using the text of Ezekiel 44 (especially verse 2: "the gate will be shut up forever" (after the prince comes in) and found out that they not only use this verse, but also the Feast of the Tabernacles and others. Strangely enough the author of the article identifies himself as "evangelical" and not agreeing fully with the position of Rome (note that he is the writer of the Roman Catholic site)

As I told a former member of this forum, now on Facebook, I couldn't careless if Mary smoke crack after she gave birth to Jesus, but I am opposed to the idea of Mediatrix, Advocatrix, and Redemptrix.

The point of my research is to find out whether one may attribute the "leaven" left in Protestant theology, even after the Reformation, was due to laziness, lack of spiritual insight, lack of information or a combination of it all. Also I want to see if there is any truth to my statements (I have been repeating such statement a lot lately) that "it is ours not THEIRS (the Reformers) generation called to finish the work that they started by finally and terminally purging from what is called the "Reformed Circles" of all vestiges of papist doctrine. The more I read some of those who came before us, without devaluing what and how much they have accomplished, what I have noticed is not a legacy of great feats only, but also a negative legacy of refusal, or dereliction of duty in REALLY reforming the Ekklesia. This saddened me at first, but at this point, it has only kindled in my heart the FIRE of reforming whatever scope my ministry God gave me to reach! If each of us, are endued with such a task there is hope for what we ourselves call "churchianity", otherwise we are doomed to be nothing but a sect, a spin off Roman Catholicism, which in its own merit, is a sect and a spin off the Babylonian empire with its mixture of pagan worship and ancient Jewish worship.

I was born and raised in a Roman Catholic Country in a Latin Country which is where the Roman Catholic are at their worst. Knowing who they are and their beliefs and systems, I think that, if we the "church" does not rid herself from the Roman Catholic leaven, our whole lump will indeed be leavened!

Thanks again!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Alright, I better change my signature NOW--as some will no doubt interpret my quotation of Oecolampadius on the canon issue as an endorsement of everything that he said (as has happened countless times on this forum!). I only posted this signature to demonstrate the common pre-1540's (Regensburg, Trent) position on the issue of the canon--both by Protestantism and the Roman Catholic church. The homolegoumena/antilegomena distinction in the canon, standing for 14 centuries prior, was officially and forever rejected by Protestantism at the publication of the French Confession in 1559. This rejection was sealed by the acceptance of Roman Catholic arguments that if the Protestants didn't accept James as homolegoumena (which was contrary to their own position the entirety of their existence prior), Protestantism would quickly become an irrelevant radical sect identified by rebellion against the most basic of historic Christianity. The Protestants ate this argument up like candy, much like politicians quickly crumble at the threats of opponents today.

On the issue of venerating Mary, I still have trouble accepting that Calvin taught it later in his career--I don't think that can be supported (but I could have it wrong). I realize that in those days the issue was not the main event.

--Bob

[GraceAmbassador]

Bob and all,

I think the fact that Oecoleampadius believed something so dear to the Roman Catholics whereas REJECTING James as Homolegoumena makes your signature be even more powerful! Perhaps Oecoleampadius found that placing James as Homolegoumena was even more outrageous than believing the perpetual virginity; Maybe he even found support for such a doctrine whereas NOT FINDING ANY to placing James in the Homelegoumena list!

Traditional and Roman Catholic interpretation of Ezekiel 44 and the feasts - I can post the links here later, I just didn't do it yet because I thought this issue would find no interest here - is where THE RCC maintained, along with some 1500/1600 Protestants that Mary remained a virgin.

THAT'S HOW IMPORTANT THE THREAD OF CHRISTOCENTRICITY IS!!!!! The exaggeration of finding Christ in every book, chapter and verse potentially leads one to making doctrines that FOR THIS WRITER can be STRANGE. Ezekiel is one of the prophets and he speaks of Christ; The Jewish Feasts do point to Christ, because they are "Mosaic" and Jesus said in Luke 24 that "Moses, Psalms and Prophets" speak of him. However finding Christ and finding Mary because they found Christ is a stretch. I think the PRINCE can be Jesus in Ezekiel 44:2 without however finding that the gate that would shut up forever is Mary's virginity. It is almost, allow me to say and correct me if I am irreverent, "a euphemistic epithet, worthy of gutter language" to say that the "a gate shutting up forever" speaks of Mary's female anatomy so she would not have anymore babies. Otherwise, PARDON my ignorance!

Leave your signature as it is Bob, it is great!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks Milt!

Any apocalyptic or allegorical/analogical interpretation of the Ezek. 40-48 chapters is something we need to reject in my conviction. Yes, it all points to Christ--however, the reason is not speculative nor mysterious. If all the promises of God find their complete and final fulfillment in Him (Paul--2 Cor. 1:18-22), then the method of fulfillment is something different than some allegorical/analogical or apocalyptic speculation that can be interpreted to mean anything at all. I know you agree with this!

The perpetual virginity view is a Johnny-come-lately perversion; no such doctrine can be found in the clarity of the apostolic testimony. So men have to resort to mysterious and strange allegorical/analogical interpretation of the OT to support it. Yes, Christ is EVERYWHERE in the OT in a PROPHETIC reality, just as is preached by all the apostles. He is not there in a speculative re-interpretation of the facts.

This is why I have a real problem with finding all the details of the gospel in the Song of Solomon and other books; I reject ALLEGORY as a means of interpretation in the same manner as MYSTERY, PARADOX, SYNTHESIS, and COMPARTMENTALIZATION! The gospel message of the NT rings with clarity, not mysterious confusion.

--Bro. Bob

[GraceAmbassador]

This is why I have a real problem with finding all the details of the gospel in the Song of Solomon and other books; I reject ALLEGORY as a means of interpretation in the same manner as MYSTERY, PARADOX, SYNTHESIS, and COMPARTMENTALIZATION! The gospel message of the NT rings with clarity, not mysterious confusion.

That's exactly what I have been teaching about Christocentricity! Thanks for improving it!
People are passing around lists containing "Jesus" is every sing one of the 66 books without however giving you how they found him there... That's really worrisome for me because they may find Jesus in what I think is in some blasphemous ways...

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

That's exactly what I have been teaching about Christocentricity! Thanks for improving it!
People are passing around lists containing "Jesus" is every sing one of the 66 books without however giving you how they found him there... That's really worrisome for me because they may find Jesus in what I think is in some blasphemous ways...

Milt

Again, I am quoting myself here because of the "blasphemous" statement...

Churchianity subscribers are appalled, in awe, astounded and S.O.B. (short of breath), when they hear a Mormon teaching that Jesus is the product of sexual relations between a "man God" and Mary, but they do not even flinch, cringe or otherwise feel outraged when, in pursuit of finding Christ in the Songs of Solomon they see "Jesus" (in quotation marks on purpose) having a steamy sexual relationship with what churchianity claims is the Church. Now, my dear brethren here,

HOW DOES BELIEVING THAT CHRIST IS THE ONE DEPICTED IN THE SONGS OF SOLOMON HELP THE GOSPEL? Anyone dare to help me here with an answer? I am sincerely asking.

Milt