Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
Origen

Poll Question: Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Poll Question: Perpetual Virginity of Mary?  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll Question: Perpetual Virginity of Mary?



Recommended Posts

Let's hear the arguments for and against or just vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no strictly biblical support for this doctrine (meaning that nowhere in the bible is it stated that Mary continued to be a virgin until she died). Besides, what does it really matter?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no strictly biblical support for this doctrine (meaning that nowhere in the bible is it stated that Mary continued to be a virgin until she died). Besides, what does it really matter?

 

By "strictly biblical" do you mean "explicitly biblical"?

 

If so, that is true but then many things are not "explicitly biblical" - God being Trinity for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By "strictly biblical" do you mean "explicitly biblical"?

 

If so, that is true but then many things are not "explicitly biblical" - God being Trinity for example.

 

Trying to split hairs I see.

 

Actually you can find multiple examples of the trinity in the bible. Of course the word "trinity" is not in there specifically, however, there are references to all three persons in the Godhead. But the idea that Mary was still a virgin up until the day she died is pure speculation, with absolutely no biblical support whatsoever.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knotical is correct. There is also the problem of avoiding the subject. The topic of the trinity is neither here nor there when it comes to the perpetual virginity of Mary. One cannot support the perpetual virginity of Mary by addressing any so called lack of explicitly biblical claims concerning the trinity.

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trying to split hairs I see.

 

Actually you can find multiple examples of the trinity in the bible. Of course the word "trinity" is not in there specifically, however, there are references to all three persons in the Godhead. But the idea that Mary was still a virgin up until the day she died is pure speculation, with absolutely no biblical support whatsoever.

 

No, I.m not trying to split hairs but to clarify what you meant.

 

Regarding the Trinity - yes, you can find biblical support for the concept. But there is no explicit statement that God is three persons. It's a deduction from different scriptural references.

 

It's the same with Mary being ever-virgin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knotical is correct. There is also the problem of avoiding the subject. The topic of the trinity is neither here nor there when it comes to the perpetual virginity of Mary. One cannot support the perpetual virginity of Mary by addressing any so called lack of explicitly biblical claim concerning the trinity.

 

I was not trying to avoid the the subject. Do you not think it is better to clarify terms before diving into a discussion?

 

The mention of the Trinity was not made as a support for the perpetual virginity of Mary but to support the point that there does not need to be an explicit statement for something to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I.m not trying to split hairs but to clarify what you meant.

 

Regarding the Trinity - yes, you can find biblical support for the concept. But there is no explicit statement that God is three persons. It's a deduction from different scriptural references.

 

It's the same with Mary being ever-virgin.

 

Your argument fails as you can't even come to any reasonable conclusion from scripture that Mary remained a virgin until death. However, yes the three different persons of the trinity are mentioned. Which is why we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Show my specific scriptural support that Mary should be considered a perpetual virgin. While you are at it, explain to me why this would be important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your argument fails as you can't even come to any reasonable conclusion from scripture that Mary remained a virgin until death.
Ah, so there is no evidence in the Bible. Enough said. Thank you.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not trying to avoid the the subject. Do you not think it is better to clarify terms before diving into a discussion?

 

The mention of the Trinity was not made as a support for the perpetual virginity of Mary but to support the point that there does not need to be an explicit statement for something to be true.

The only way to do that is with evidence. Anything else is pointless and does not address the topic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your argument fails as you can't even come to any reasonable conclusion from scripture that Mary remained a virgin until death.

 

I haven't presented any yet. But as you and Origen have already prejudged the matter there is no point in doing so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way to do that is with evidence. Anything else is pointless and does not address the topic.

 

 

As always you are completely and infallibly correct and I obviously do not know what I am saying.

 

I'd better go and lie down in a darkened room for a few weeks until I recover.

 

God bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As always you are completely and infallibly correct and I obviously do not know what I am saying.
Bede please do not go overboard or take everything I say personally. I like you and find you interesting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I haven't presented any yet. But as you and Origen have already prejudged the matter there is no point in doing so.

 

 

So provide some, if there is any. We do not mean to attack you, but as you can surely understand when someone start asserting a doctrine that is supposedly bible-based it should be vetted, meaning to test it against what the bible says.

 

Sure there are confessions all over the place that assert a number of things, including some false doctrines, but that is how we grow and "sharpen" each other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for my absence. A family emergency has kept me rather detained. But, point one, being baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is not enough to guarantee that one is being baptised in the name of the Trinity. The Mormons baptise in those words, and they DON'T believe in the Trinity but in three separate gods. Now, that we have got that out of the way...

 

KNOTICAL has still not justified his use of a toilet. I don't see that such a device is mentioned in the Bible. Until he can present evidence of one...

 

Next, there is no evidence that Mary was ever pregnant more than once. One would think that since she was mentioned several times in the Bible, a further pregnancy would have been mentioned. And one would think that the birth of more brothers and sisters might have been noticed, and possibly the death of a few, since half of all children DIED in childbirth...

 

I would LOVE to know how he imputes false doctrines to Martin Luther, and holds himself higher than the great Reformer. Sounds rather arrogant to me. I am no Romanist. But to challenge 2,000 years of church teaching, East and West, is pure pomposity.

 

On to the next subject: Why is it important that Mary be Ever Virgin? Simple. If Joseph had children already, and died very early in their marriage, it is highly unlikely that they had much time to consummate their marriage anyway. And Mary, after his death, certainly would not have messed around with other men! Ergo, She would have remained Virginal. And since the Bible says very little on Mary's sexual status, the argument could go for or against without committing heresy either way. But the constant teaching history of the Church for 2,000 years kind of resolves it. 7 Ecumenical Councils resolves it. Or even 4 take care of it. Since Presbyterians and the Reformed Churches recognise Four...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'evening Diego,

 

KNOTICAL has still not justified his use of a toilet. I don't see that such a device is mentioned in the Bible. Until he can present evidence of one...

 

It is a horrible analogy that you're using, and persistence is only making it worse.

 

I would LOVE to know how he imputes false doctrines to Martin Luther, and holds himself higher than the great Reformer. Sounds rather arrogant to me. I am no Romanist. But to challenge 2,000 years of church teaching, East and West, is pure pomposity.

 

That's the Reformed Spirit! Didn't the Catholic church impute much false doctrine towards Martin Luther in his upbringing? And, John Calvin is not the Presbyterian equivalent of the Popes, but seemingly, Diego, the lines between Tradition and Scripture are being blurred. I tend to give the First Generation Reformers the benefit of the doubt, one life being too short to address all the heretical teachings of the Catholic church, but if push comes to shove, I'll suggest that Martin Luther believed a heretical doctrine "if" no Scriptural basis can be founded.

 

Why is it important that Mary be Ever Virgin? Simple. If Joseph had children already, and died very early in their marriage, it is highly unlikely that they had much time to consummate their marriage anyway.

 

Where are you getting that information from? I want to know the Scriptures or extra-biblical text the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity is based on. Obviously venerating Mary rests on this ... this... this doctrine.

 

And since the Bible says very little on Mary's sexual status, the argument could go for or against without committing heresy either way.

 

No doubt I can see it going towards heretical! And such heresy is the symptom from wrongly attributed authority in many people! I agree with your point though, Mary's sexual status is spoken about very little except for the emphasis on her virginity up until the birth of Jesus Christ. No further information is mentioned, unless you are pointing to some extra-bilblical text, like the Catholic church, historian, or other gospel accounts outside the Bible?

 

Don't be afraid to bring them to the forefront if they exists! Don't know which books you'll be dragging out from the Vatican library, but I'm curious!

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are of course several extra-Biblical sources, as one can imagine. The Protevangelion of James comes to mind, as does the 1st Infancy Gospel.*GRIN* The versions I have were actually translated by an Archbishop of Canterbury (Church of England). No Romanist there.

 

Allow me to state in all good faith that I am far from being a Romanist. I am Lutheran to the core. I consider Luther a guidepost. I am as monergistic as he was, which puts me as close to TULIP as one can get without being John Calvin himself. I resent being identified with the Roman Catholic Church in any way. I was raised as such and as an Anglican (kind of half and half), and I consider myself to definitely uphold the three Solae. I do NOT in any way identify with Romanism.

 

I do identify with the true Church Catholic. But that has NOTHING to with Rome in any way. I hold the Faith of the Fathers, not the Vatican, thank you very much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I consider myself to definitely uphold the three Solae.

 

Hi Diego,

 

Which three?

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grace Alone, Faith Alone, And Scripture Alone. However, as I am given to understand it, that does not toss tradition completely out the window. So long as tradition does NOT conflict with Scripture, it may be used in the Church of God. Now, as for the Invocation of Saints (as an example), this is a tradition of men that clearly provokes and contradicts Scripture, and so must be removed. But the Ever Virginity of Mary does not, at least in my understanding, contradict Scripture in any way. Certainly Luther did not appear to think so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grace Alone, Faith Alone, And Scripture Alone. However, as I am given to understand it, that does not toss tradition completely out the window. So long as tradition does NOT conflict with Scripture, it may be used in the Church of God. Now, as for the Invocation of Saints (as an example), this is a tradition of men that clearly provokes and contradicts Scripture, and so must be removed. But the Ever Virginity of Mary does not, at least in my understanding, contradict Scripture in any way. Certainly Luther did not appear to think so.

 

Diego,

 

Is there any reason why you have rejected Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are of course several extra-Biblical sources, as one can imagine. The Protevangelion of James comes to mind, as does the 1st Infancy Gospel.*GRIN* The versions I have were actually translated by an Archbishop of Canterbury (Church of England).
The Gospel of James, the Protevangelion of James, and the Infancy Gospel of James are different names for the same document.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, no, Origen. I have two separate documents. Let me use the full names.The Protevangelion of James. The 1st Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, no, Origen. I have two separate documents. Let me use the full names.The Protevangelion of James. The 1st Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
I said James not Thomas. Yes there is a Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William, as far as Christ Alone and the Glory of God Alone, I have not so much REJECTED them as I simply don't have them in my piety. those last two were added by Reformed theologians in Southern Central Europe (Switzerland and Southern Germany near Switzerland). Its not that they are wrong in any way. In fact they are quite correct. But they have never really been a part of Lutheran piety per se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bede please do not go overboard or take everything I say personally. I like you and find you interesting.

 

 

I tend to take personally what is addressed to me personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×