Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
And the Bible says Her child is holy! And Her child is God!

Is 7:14 God provides a sign, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son! (Singular, one son)


Yup. No one here has disagreed with that.

Your claim is that SCRIPTURE "clearly says" that Mary DIED a virgin... the issue is not Her virginity at the birth of Jesus... the issue is not other children... the issue is entirely, wholly, exclusively singular: Was She ALWAYS... _PERPETUALLY... a virgin, up to and inc;iuding the moment of Her death. Your claim is that Scripture clearly states that. And you have gone to some lengths to prove yourself wrong, to make it undeniably clear Scripture says NO SUCH THING. Your church does (we all already knew that) but not Scripture. Brother. I'm surprised you keep referencing Scripture - even at times quoting it - only to prove your claim wrong (but you ARE making it easy for those who disagree with you... you are doing all their work for them).



.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Dogma referring to mary

Current Dogma IN YOUR CHURCH. It's silly to apply that to Luther, Calvin and Wesley. They did NOT hold these as dogma (indeed, nor did your church in the 16th Century in some cases).

Read post 136.





.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Something tells me you’re insisting on sex desecrating the wife, 50 yrs ago, are you referring to the practice of “the churching of women”?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is 7:14 God provides a sign, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son!


You persist in proving yourself wrong. I wonder why you do that?


Brother, IF you read what you posted you'll see that this proves you wrong: It does NOT say, "The one who bears this son will die a virgin." Nothing here about perpetual..... NOTHING.

You claim that SCRIPTURE "clearly states" that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. And you attempt to prove this by noting what everyone here agrees with: Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus. What you keep choosing to prove (undeniably) is that Scripture actually says NOTHING - absolutely nothing whatsoever - about whether She remained so. You keep proving your claim to be false;. All you keep doing is proving your detractors to be correct: the Bible is SILENT on the matter. You are just doing their work for them, you are just proving yourself wrong and they correct.



.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I know I said I was done with this thread but, you know...

I guess I must still be 21. I used to be 21 and if what passes for logic here can be transferred elsewhere the fact I was once 21 means I must forever be 21, right? The gray in my hair that suggests otherwise must be bearing false witness. I'm forever 21, I finally unlocked the elixir of perpetual youth. We can all be young forever.

Now all I need is a way to market this and I can be forever rich as well as forever youthful.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Your just repeating yourself.

You persist in proving yourself wrong. I wonder why you do that?
There is an "ignore" function here, and there's no reason not to use it unless we all want to read the same out-of-touch replies repeated endlessly.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I know I said I was done with this thread but, you know...

I guess I must still be 21. I used to be 21 and if what passes for logic here can be transferred elsewhere the fact I was once 21 means I must forever be 21, right? The gray in my hair that suggests otherwise must be bearing false witness. I'm forever 21, I finally unlocked the elixir of perpetual youth. We can all be young forever.

Now all I need is a way to market this and I can be forever rich as well as forever youthful.


That's his logic.....

I use to be a virgin.... so therefore it is a dogmatic fact that I will die a virgin. Does he know that EVERYONE is a virgin at some point but few are THUS perpetual virgins?

But look: He's gone to some trouble to prove that Scripture says NOTHING about whether Mary remained a virgin all her life. He himself has proven (over and over) the Bible is entirely SILENT on that point. He simply is wrong about his claim that the Bible "clearly states" this. No one could have shown this better than he has.



.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That's his logic.....

I use to be a virgin.... so therefore it is a dogmatic fact that I will die a virgin. Does he know that EVERYONE is a virgin at some point but few are THUS perpetual virgins?

But look: He's gone to some trouble to prove that Scripture says NOTHING about whether Mary remained a virgin all her life. He himself has proven (over and over) the Bible is entirely SILENT on that point. He simply is wrong about his claim that the Bible "clearly states" this. No one could have shown this better than he has.



.

Some people remain virgins their entire life. Most of them never have children though, for reasons that we can probably all figure out...
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Some people remain virgins their entire life.


most don't. MIGHT Mary have remained a virgin all her life? OF COURSE! But our brother is flat out, undeniably wrong when he insists that the Bible states She did; And HE HIMSELF has chosen to prove this (over and over and over and over).




.
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
733
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hope this helps
What Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley thought doesn't help a bit. And re-posting what you have already posted certainly isn't helping. We already know what the said.

Instead of quoting others, why don't you try to answer the question yourself, in your own words.
 

Castle Church

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
427
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Methodist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hope this helps
Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wesley

‘I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).


St Augustine, Sermons 186.1 (early 5th century):

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.28.3 (13th century):

"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.

For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

“Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

“Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

“Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."

The blessed Mary mother of God, is a perpetual virgin to the glory of God!

Sorry, while I hold the Reformers in very, very high regard and with the upmost respect, they do not speak infallibly and I disagree with them on this matter. Further, they did not, and you did not via their quotes, use scripture to support the doctrine. You are certainly free to believe it, as they did, but they would not hold me to believe it too - and frankly would respect my insistence on a scriptural basis for the belief.

*Edit*
Let me also add that at one time I believed as you do. I converted to the RCC willingly and with zeal in 2013, but subsequently have lapsed and now am staunchly Protestant.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sorry, while I hold the Reformers in very, very high regard and with the upmost respect, they do not speak infallibly and I disagree with them on this matter.


And Luther and Calvin would be 100% okay with that.

Our Catholic brother is implying something not true. The Reformers did NOT hold that all the current, modern Marian dogmas ARE indeed mandated dogmas (some were not when the Reformers lived, either). They cannot be quoted to support the modern RCC position.

They EMBRACED some Marian views as PIOUS OPINION. Pious opinion is a BELIEF (not doctrine) that is NOT taught in Scripture OR denied in Scripture (it's not clear in Scripture) BUT has very ancient and ecumenical embrace.... it's what Christians have almost universally believed. Pious opinion MAY be embrace but it is not REQUIRED that it is embraced. In view of the PVM, most Lutherans did embrace this until about 50 years ago when it began to fall out of favor among Lutherans, I now suspect most agree with me that we simply do not know (and it doesn't matter.... and perhaps is none of our business). But Lutherans MAY believe this (my pastor does) and MAY not.

Thus the Reformers did NOT agree with the modern RCC or with its latest edition of its own Catechism. Our Catholic brother is (perhaps unknowingly) misleading you.



AND I agree with you: While it is informative to see what individuals believe, such is not normative. Lutherans hold that Luther c0uld be wrong ... and not infrequently was. Luther held that he was fully accountable, and that to Scripture.



Our brother's position is that SCRIPTURE "clearly states" that Mary REMAINED a virgin all her life. But he has gone to some lengths to prove himself wrong. Everyone sees that (I suspect he does too). Does TRADITION uphold this? Yes! Does SCRIPTURE teach this? No.




.
 
Last edited:

Castle Church

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
427
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Methodist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
And Luther and Calvin would be 100% okay with that.

Our Catholic brother is implying something not true. The Reformers did NOT hold that all the current, modern Marian dogmas ARE indeed mandated dogmas (some were not when the Reformers lived, either). They cannot be quoted to support the modern RCC position.

They EMBRACED some Marian views as PIOUS OPINION. Pious opinion is a BELIEF (not doctrine) that is NOT taught in Scripture OR denied in Scripture (it's not clear in Scripture) BUT has very ancient and ecumenical embrace.... it's what Christians have almost universally believed. Pious opinion MAY be embrace but it is not REQUIRED that it is embraced. In view of the PVM, most Lutherans did embrace this until about 50 years ago when it began to fall out of favor among Lutherans, I now suspect most agree with me that we simply do not know (and it doesn't matter.... and perhaps is none of our business). But Lutherans MAY believe this (my pastor does) and MAY not.

Thus the Reformers did NOT agree with the modern RCC or with its latest edition of its own Catechism. Our Catholic brother is (perhaps unknowingly) misleading you.



AND I agree with you: While it is informative to see what individuals believe, such is not normative. Lutherans hold that Luther c0uld be wrong ... and not infrequently was. Luther held that he was fully accountable, and that to Scripture.



Our brother's position is that SCRIPTURE "clearly states" that Mary REMAINED a virgin all her life. But he has gone to some lengths to prove himself wrong. Everyone sees that (I suspect he does too). Does TRADITION uphold this? Yes! Does SCRIPTURE teach this? No.




.
Oh, he is not misleading me, I understand his position clearly as I once held it just as zealously. But over time and with looking at scripture through a different lens, one not under the auspices of the Magisterium, I have come to the conclusion that it is certainly not in scripture as clearly as the RCC wants followers to believe.

People like to cherry pick the Reformers to make it seem like they fully believed something they may not have, or may have believed but would not have held other's to that standard. Sabbaterians use quotes from them in the same way.

If people want to believe it then that is perfectly OK with me (not that anyone needs my approval for anything), but it just is not something that can be taught from Scripture.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Luther has it as an Article of faith that’s doctrine dogma
Calvin says it’s the Hersey Helvidius so he also has it in a level of doctrine

Mary was consecrated to God
Mary made a vow to God of perpetual virginity (according to ven. Mary of agreeda)
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley thought doesn't help a bit. And re-posting what you have already posted certainly isn't helping. We already know what the said.

Instead of quoting others, why don't you try to answer the question yourself, in your own words.
What question?
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sorry, while I hold the Reformers in very, very high regard and with the upmost respect, they do not speak infallibly and I disagree with them on this matter. Further, they did not, and you did not via their quotes, use scripture to support the doctrine. You are certainly free to believe it, as they did, but they would not hold me to believe it too - and frankly would respect my insistence on a scriptural basis for the belief.

*Edit*
Let me also add that at one time I believed as you do. I converted to the RCC willingly and with zeal in 2013, but subsequently have lapsed and now am staunchly Protestant.
Why a scripture basis?

why does it need be in scripture?

what is the source of truth for Christians or the rule of faith for Christians?

what is the pillar and ground of truth?
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
733
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What question?
Literally no one here is saying Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. They are not questioning her virginal motherhood.

And exactly how does having relations after Jesus was born affect the "truth that he was both fully God and fully man"?


All you did was re-post some quotes by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Augustine. Non of which answers the question. If you are going to quote Theologians or Historians then please explain why their quote supports your position.

How does what Mary and Joseph did (or didnt' do) after the virgin birth of Christ take away from Christ being both fully God and Fully Man?
 
Last edited:

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Literally no one here is saying Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. They are not questioning her virginal motherhood.

And exactly how does having relations after Jesus was born affect the "truth that he was both fully God and fully man"?


All you did was re-post some quotes by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Augustine. Non of which answers the question. If you are going to quote Theologians or Historians then please explain why their quote supports your position.

How does what Mary and Joseph did (or didnt' do) after the virgin birth of Christ take away from Christ being both fully God and Fully Man?
And here is some from the saints successors of the apostles
St Augustine, Sermons 186.1 (early 5th century):

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.28.3 (13th century):

"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.

For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

“Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

“Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

“Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."
 

Castle Church

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
427
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Methodist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Luther has it as an Article of faith that’s doctrine dogma

Calvin says it’s the Hersey Helvidius so he also has it in a level of doctrine
Again, neither of them rise to the level of "Pope" or magisterium. The Smalcald Articles may hold it as an article, but not all Lutherans are Confessional, and even Confessional Lutherans do not hold the Confessions as something that is infallible.

Further, you misunderstand the purpose of the Confessions. They are only binding on Lutherans (and really only Confessional Lutherans) in regards to Doctrines taught in scripture, not in opinions of science or history (as pious as it may be). As the perpetual virginity is not taught in scripture, the opinions taught in the Confessions are not binding. They hold a heavy weight and should cause us to investigate the idea fully, but it is not a binding Dogma or Doctrine in order for one to be "Lutheran".


Mary made a vow to God of perpetual virginity (according to ven. Mary of agreeda)
That is not scripture, while it may be a pious opinion, it holds no weight in this conversation.
Why a scripture basis?

why does it need be in scripture?
Because if it is not, then it is simply a pious opinion, or something left for us to wonder. If it is not in scripture, then why would we be bound to believe it?
what is the source of truth for Christians or the rule of faith for Christians?

what is the pillar and ground of truth?
The Trinity and the actual WORD of God in the Scriptures.
Literally no one here is saying Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. They are not questioning her virginal motherhood.

And exactly how does having relations after Jesus was born affect the "truth that he was both fully God and fully man"?


All you did was re-post some quotes by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Augustine. Non of which answers the question. If you are going to quote Theologians or Historians then please explain why their quote supports your position.

How does what Mary and Joseph did (or didnt' do) after the virgin birth of Christ take away from Christ being both fully God and Fully Man?
^^^ This. Thanks for bringing it back, you are right - my initial question was avoided, or ignored.



As for Calvin, I think his advise is sage in this dicussion:
This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.​

With that, I think I will take the advice in the last sentence:
no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Again, neither of them rise to the level of "Pope" or magisterium. The Smalcald Articles may hold it as an article, but not all Lutherans are Confessional, and even Confessional Lutherans do not hold the Confessions as something that is infallible.

Further, you misunderstand the purpose of the Confessions. They are only binding on Lutherans (and really only Confessional Lutherans) in regards to Doctrines taught in scripture, not in opinions of science or history (as pious as it may be). As the perpetual virginity is not taught in scripture, the opinions taught in the Confessions are not binding. They hold a heavy weight and should cause us to investigate the idea fully, but it is not a binding Dogma or Doctrine in order for one to be "Lutheran".



That is not scripture, while it may be a pious opinion, it holds no weight in this conversation.

Because if it is not, then it is simply a pious opinion, or something left for us to wonder. If it is not in scripture, then why would we be bound to believe it?

The Trinity and the actual WORD of God in the Scriptures.

^^^ This. Thanks for bringing it back, you are right - my initial question was avoided, or ignored.



As for Calvin, I think his advise is sage in this dicussion:
This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.​

With that, I think I will take the advice in the last sentence:
Why does it or any doctrine have to be in scripture?

what’s the source of truth?
What’s the rule of faith?
What’s the pillar and ground of truth
 
Top Bottom