* Calvin of COURSE held to the Virgin birth of CHRIST, he merely maintained that there is no evidence to suggest Mary REMAINED a virgin.
* I do not know much about Zwingli to tell you the truth, but I do know that Luther was a devout Catholic before unearthing the truth of Scripture. He maintained a lot of Catholic practices and did not challenge Rome’s teachings on side issues of doctrine for quite awhile. He became more “progressively” Protestant as time went on and searched the Scriptures more deeply though, and this is true with regard to his views on Mary.
In **1532** he preached:
Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person. [36]
In **1534** Luther explained that Christ was “born of a young maiden, as you and I are born of our mothers. The only difference is that the Holy Spirit engineered this conception and birth, while in contrast we mortals are conceived and born in sin.”[37] Mary functioned in Luther’s theology as “the guarantee of the reality of the incarnation and of the human nature of Christ.”[38]
Pay attention to the dates of his writings and his evolving views.
http://www.ntrmin.org/Luthers%20Theology%20of%20Mary.htm
You wrote:
“Calvin of COURSE held to the Virgin birth of CHRIST, he merely maintained that there is no evidence to suggest Mary REMAINED a virgin.”
But that isn’t what the two quotes in question say. Neither one of them says Calvin DID NOT believe her perpetual virginity. He criticized what was put forward as evidence of it, but did not deny it there. We have to work with the evidence we have. Do you have evidence that actually says what you are claiming? So far you have not provided it.
“I do not know much about Zwingli to tell you the truth, but I do know that Luther was a devout Catholic before unearthing the truth of Scripture.”
Zwingli was a Reformer and you denied the Reformers supported Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Zwingli was extremely important and influential in his day. If you don’t even know much about him, how can you speak about what the Reformers believed? Also, Luther was NOT a devout Catholic for some years before his apostasy. His own admissions show that he was a psychologically tortured man who had given up the proper practice of his faith years before his apostasy. It seems he invented Protestantism to ease his conscience.
“He maintained a lot of Catholic practices and did not challenge Rome’s teachings on side issues of doctrine for quite awhile.”
He did maintain many Catholic practices in his new sect, but that’s completely irrelevant. He was a Reformer. He maintained a belief in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. You denied that the Reformers did so. Doesn’t this mean you were inaccurate?
“He became more “progressively” Protestant as time went on and searched the Scriptures more deeply though, and this is true with regard to his views on Mary.”
That’s your view. On this point - Mary’s sinlessness - is that what we actually see in Luther’s writings?
“In **1532** he preached:”
That’s 15 years AFTER the Reformation began...and notice he is still maintaining Mary’s sinlessness (”Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood”)
“In **1534**”
And the 1534 statement in no way denies the 1532 statement on the issue of Mary’s sinlessness. The 1534 says nothing about Mary’s sinlessness, and it certainly doesn’t deny it.
This is the second time you have posted quotes that don’t say what you claim they say. Do you actually read this stuff before you post it?
“Pay attention to the dates of his writings and his evolving views.”
There’s no evolution of views there on Mary’s sinlessness.
Also, citing a notoriously flawed anti-Catholic website is probably not a good idea. MOst anti-Catholics simply don’t do their homework.