Cure of Ars Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 (edited) The founders of Protestantism held to Mary’s perpetual virginity. Luther "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of our Lord and still a virgin." Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 319 "......knew that she was to become the Mother of the Son of God, she did not wish to become the mother of the son of man, but remained in that gift." Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 320 "Undoubtedly, there is no one so powerful that, depending on his own intelligence, without Scripture, he would maintain that she did not remain a virgin." Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 11, pg 320 Calvin Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: 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) } Huldreich Zwingli He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . . 'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. {G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522} Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' {Thurian, ibid., p.76} I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon} John Wesley I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495} Edited September 29, 2003 by Cure of Ars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Great point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper4DaHolyG Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 how is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 how is it? ...?? How is it... that you had it wrong all these years? Well, as the story goes: Once Luther, Calvin, et al opened the doors for private interpritation, then there was no need for the Traditions of the Church. So, in essence, people began to re-invent the wheel using the Bible alone (and the Bible was really only a portion of what the Apostles / Christ taught - not to mention it was only a TRANSLATION of the language Christ and his Apostles used). So, it was inevitable that these private interpritations would be skewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper4DaHolyG Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 ...?? How is it... that you had it wrong all these years? Well, as the story goes: Once Luther, Calvin, et al opened the doors for private interpritation, then there was no need for the Traditions of the Church. So, in essence, people began to re-invent the wheel using the Bible alone (and the Bible was really only a portion of what the Apostles / Christ taught - not to mention it was only a TRANSLATION of the language Christ and his Apostles used). So, it was inevitable that these private interpritations would be skewed. how is it a great point. I believe in Jesus as the son of God all of us do... one thing we had in common.... If you accepted Jesus in your heart, and Jesus is the Word then what more do you need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 how is it a great point. I believe in Jesus as the son of God all of us do... one thing we had in common.... If you accepted Jesus in your heart, and Jesus is the Word then what more do you need? Yeah, And... Your point is... If you're saying we didn't NEED Mary - then you are 1) a fool. Because since God chose Mary to bring His Son into the world, and since that was the PERFECT choice (since God only makes perfect choices), then YES we NEEDED Mary. and 2) you are WAY off topic. The subject isn't whether or not we need anyone other than Jesus. The subject is whether or not Mary had other children. And it was a GREAT point that even the reformers who were trying so hard to bring the Church back from "corruption" (or what they thought was) hadn't considered Mary's virginity, as Taught by the Catholic Church, a corruption. You'd think that Luther (who apperantly saved humanity from the nasty Catholic Church) would have considered Mary's virginity a corruption of the '"truth", since it supposedly was refuted in the Bible. Yet EVEN he maintained that belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 If you accepted Jesus in your heart, and Jesus is the Word then what more do you need? To follow his teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuba steve Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 wow.... i think i might become a catholic now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 how is it a great point. I believe in Jesus as the son of God all of us do... one thing we had in common.... If you accepted Jesus in your heart, and Jesus is the Word then what more do you need? Baptism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 To follow his teachings. I second that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now