Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM ^ | Dave Armstrong compiles quotes from Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al.,

[Patrick Madrid]

Amidst all the stimulating discussion here about the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, it ocurred to me that it would be instructive to point out that both Martin Luther and John Calvin -- the progenitors of two of the three major branches of the Protestant Reformation -- both held firmly to this Catholic teaching. For your consideration, let me add here some pertinent quotes from these two Protestant leaders.

I'd respectfully ask our Evangelical and Fundamentalist friends here to think carefully about these quotes and consider just how far modern-day Protestantism has drifted from its 16th-century moorings, not to mention how very far it has drifted from the fifteen centuries of the Catholic Faith that preceded the Protestant Reformation.

— Patrick Madrid

Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants  on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely "tradition" with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.

Let's see what the Founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as "silly," "desperate," "obviously false," "unbiblical tradition" here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them. I guess the same "errors" are egregious to a different degree, depending on who accepts and promulgates them -- sort of like the Orwellian proverb from Animal Farm: "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others."

General

Whatever may be the position theologically that one may take today on the subject of Mariology, one is not able to call to one's aid 'reformed tradition' unless one does it with the greatest care . . . the Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular . . . . .

In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .

{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}

The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).

{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }

Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .

[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands.

{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}

Martin Luther

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John 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}

Heinrich Bullinger

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

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}

  Main Index & Search | The Blessed Virgin Mary | Protestantism

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 27 January 2002.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

(Chuckle)The only reason you call it a "game" is because you can't win it.

If it starts raining, drop your head or you'll drown.

BigMack

[A_Thinker]

The scriptures are the objective final authority for Protestants.

Truth proclaimed orally has no edge over truth proclaimed in writing. Both are subject to mis-interpetation.

However, truth proclaimed in writing is, at least, verifiable, from one point in time to another.

Even if I am not sure that I am interpreting a written teaching correctly (and the Holy Spirit will act at this point to teach truth to the receptive heart), ... at least I know that the actual teachings themselves have not changed.

True, I can ascertain the consistency of tradition as well, but to do so ... I still have no choice but to look to the writtn record of such (bringing in yet more risk of incorrect interpretation).

So, ... if I am going to do this (place my faith in the written record) anyway, I may as well go all the way back to the recorded words of God, Himself.

[A_Thinker]

Please allow me to add to this posting ...

The scriptures are the objective final authority for Protestants.

Truth proclaimed orally has no edge over truth proclaimed in writing. Both are subject to mis-interpetation.

However, truth proclaimed in writing is, at least, verifiable, from one point in time to another.

Even if I am not sure that I am interpreting a written teaching correctly (and the Holy Spirit will act at this point to teach truth to the receptive heart), ... at least I know that the actual teachings themselves have not changed.

True, I can ascertain the consistency of tradition as well, but to do so ... I still have no choice but to look to the writtn record of such (bringing in yet more risk of incorrect interpretation).

So, ... if I am going to do this (place my faith in the written record) anyway, I may as well go all the way back to the recorded words of God, Himself, which He, Himself, will help me to interpret.

[Patrick Madrid]

So speedy replies and being published count against one here?

911, rather than get huffy and walk away from a perectly good discussion, why don't you simply tackle what I wrote in #53? If I made a mistake in my reasoning in that comment, the neighborly thing would be to show me, now wouldn't it?

[Revelation 911]

why don't you simply tackle what I wrote in #53?

at what benefit ? your snide tone has exposed your motive - Youve danced around my assertions and now (as a literalist) insist that a plain reading of Matt 12:46 is inappropriate, yet Catholics turn around and do the same thing with Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 as they relate to the Holy communion

Nah - no thanks

[ventana]

So if God helps you interpret scripture one way, and helps the man sitting in the next pew interpret it another way, where do you turn? How do you determine who God is helping more?

v.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Wait! I see a hole lifting in the fog!

The Catholic Church contends that Mary had no other children after bearing Jesus.

"The Blessed Virgin had no child other than Jesus. Such is, and has ever been, the faith of the Church, whom Christ has promised to assist till the end of time" (Any Questions?, p. 63). [ I must be careful to point out that this teaching WAS NOT the teaching of the church in the days of the Apostles. The phrase "has ever been the faith of the Church" is entirely false.]
"... the glorious ever Virgin Mary" (Vatican II documents, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church").

What is the biblical evidence for this dogma? There is none – absolutely none. The doctrine is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with any alloy of factual evidence.

The Catholic defense for the dogma of Mary’s “perpetual virginity” is as barren as one will ever encounter in a religious controversy.

But the reality of the matter is this: the Catholic clergy believes its needs no authority – save that of its own pontificating voice. It creates its own dogma, writes its own rules, has become its own “god”. It is a sad reality that numerous people, quite noble in many respects, should sincerely, though uncritically, follow an autocratic system that stands so adverse to divinely revealed truth.

The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is bereft of any reasonable evidence. It is an ancient superstition that has been thrust upon sincere souls who have been taught to never question the voice of the Church. Many of these good people, however, are now reviewing their faith with a more critical eye. May their tribe increase.

Posted proudly with my nose in the air!!!

:)

BigMack

[conservonator]

Where as the doctrine of sola scriptura is plainly laid out in Scripture...

snort, choltle hahahah.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

snort, choltle hahahah.

Ya need a bucket? :)

BigMack

[Patrick Madrid]

You said, "your snide tone has exposed your motive - Youve danced around my assertions and now ..."


Actually, I was not being snide, I was being direct. If I came across as snide, I certainly apologize, as that was not my intention.

As for dancing, no, I think everyone here can see that I was the one who answered your questions, showing that Matthew 12, like Matthew 13, shows simply that some men were called the "brothers of the Lord." I also showed that the fact that someone is called the brother of the Lord does not thereby prove that Mary had other children besides Christ.

Please recall that I have never said that the Bible proves my case. I've freely admitted that tyhe Bible does not explicitly say that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I also showed that the Bible likewise does not prove your case, since, conversely, it does not anywhere say that Mary was *not* a perpetual virgin. (BTW, If you think you can find a verse that does explicitly say that, I welcome your posting it here for our consideration.)

Also, I gave three examples of reasonable, literal interpretations of Matthew 12 & 13, none of which would entail that Mary had other children.

And finally, I pointed out that in Matthew 13 two of them men who were called "brothers of the Lord" were not the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, but were sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas.

Elsewhere in the earlier thread, others have explained in detail the implicit biblical evidence in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. You, on the other hand, haven't responded to any of that evidence, mine or theirs, with any kind of meaningful biblical defense. All you have done is complain that I am "dancing around" your assertions.

The fact is, I've restricted myself to the scriptural and historical evidence and asked you to show where and how I made a mistake in my reasoning. I've also documented the fact that even major Protestant reformers and Bible scholars like Calvin and Luther (not to mention the universal unanimity among the early Church Fathers on this issue), agree with the Catholic teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So, my friend, if you call that "dancing around your assertions," well, I'm at a loss to know what more you would want me to do in the way of offering objective evidence in support of the Catholic position. I think I'm being fair here.

Could it be that you are backing away from this conversation, not because of something I've done (or failed to do), but because you see that your argument this historic Christian teaching isn't holding up so well now that we've examined it in the light of Scripture and Christian history? Forgive me for being blunt, but that's certainly how it looks to me.

[Polycarp]

Please. Surely you can see that just because the Bible doesn't contain a single explicit statement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union of Christ (there are plenty of implicit evidences for theme, yes, but nothing explicit -- just as with Mary's post-partun virginity) that does not mean that they are not important to God.

And don't forget, Becky, that the Bible is absolutely silent on the extent of the canon of the NT (the OT too, for that matter).

Paging DrSteveJ. You've taken me to task for similar statements about the Trinity. How about discussing this with Patrick?

[ACAC]

The one the Catholic church puts out I assume. This is a 95% Protestant area. I think the Catholic churches are a bit more lax in terms of teaching the Catholic church is the only way. I have never heard any Catholic say that. If you are Catholic, but almost everyone else you know is not, it is hard to believe they are going to burn in Hell.

[Seraphicaviary]

....But the reality of the matter is this: the Catholic clergy believes its needs no authority – save that of its own pontificating voice. It creates its own dogma, writes its own rules, has become its own “god”....

As opposed to all the Protestants becoming their own "gods" by putting personal interpretation in what they read.

It just is starting to seem like they are not so much followers of the Word, but followers of the Book. The Word had two feet and walked around Galilee for a bit. There is a whole lot more to the Word than the Book.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Please. Surely you can see that just because the Bible doesn't contain a single explicit statement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union of Christ (there are plenty of implicit evidences for theme, yes, but nothing explicit -- just as with Mary's post-partun virginity) that does not mean that they are not important to God.

And don't forget, Becky, that the Bible is absolutely silent on the extent of the canon of the NT (the OT too, for that matter).

Absolutely. I agree with everything above except for the "plenty of implicit evedences" part.

[A_Thinker]

So if God helps you interpret scripture one way, and helps the man sitting in the next pew interpret it another way, where do you turn? How do you determine who God is helping more?

You speak as one who knows not the scriptures ... for God has said ...

"I am the Lord, I change not ..."

So, God doesn't help us to develop different interpretations, ... God helps us to truth.

Now, at times, He's got to deal with our own predjudices, which will distort His truth. But, not to worry, ... God is faithful ... and will deliver His truth to the open heart.

[ventana]

Sirs.

I have very much appreciated both of your posts over the last several days. I have found you both to be insightful, unflappable, unbaitable, and coherent.

Well done.

And Patrick, I hope you can find time to spare, and continue to share your gift with us. Welcome to FR.

I would also like to direct the interested readers attention to another treatment of the RC/NC Mary debate, also from Envoy, where a conversation is had between an NC talk show host and an RC call-in. Its a great read.

v.

[conservonator]

Got one;)

[ventana]

Well I certainly wish I knew the scriptures better, but I don't feel you are getting my point.
If two men in the same church have differing interpretations of the same scripture. We may assume that God is helping you to be correct, but what of your neighbor?

Driving through the south, I have often been sadly amused by very small towns containing what appears to be a series of diminishing churches. I have imagined a scenario much like what I proposed to you. Two men, both convinced God is on their side, with no magisterium or teaching tradition to be their storm anchor, dividing the parish and forming yet another of the thousands of Protestant denominations formed since vain men first thought God spoke more clearly to them than He did to the current holders of the Keys to the Kingdom.

It is more than likely that we are wrong than right when we seek to raise ourselves over the great minds, holy and true, who have rightly divided the Word of God and preserved it for us in the teaching traditions of the Church.

Surely you don't think it is profitable for a man to break from his Church, and form a new one, when he has made an all-too-human error in judgement, do you? And I can't believe you think all the thousands of Churches are each correct in dividing Gods word.

Rather, it is a tragedy that following the breaking of those first key threads, those who left with Luther et al continue to further unravel into the deepening error of unguided personal interpretation.

v.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Yes. Welcome to you both. I don't know what all the hoopla surrounding your entrance was because your contribution was nothing different than what we've heard a hundred times before on this subject. But its nice to have new people around. Welcome.

[Patrick Madrid]

Thanks, Invince. You're right that this stuff has been heard hundreds of times here, and subjects like this one have been debated millions of times since the time of Christ. But just the mere fact that truth claims are debated and debated frequently doesn't mean those claims aren't important.

For example, there are those who argue today that the Holocaust never happened. Others argue that abortion should be legal. Those are claims that are well worth debating and refuting. And if five hundred years from now some are denying the Holocaust of saying abortion should be legal, I hope the debate will be joined by those who will spend time and energy refuting those claims.

So don't wonder that these Catholic issues are being debated here, as they have been for so long. That's not going to change (unfortunately), until Christ returns and all these questions will be definitevely answered and all debates will become moot.

P.S. What hoopla? I didn't see any hoopla. Dang! I missed the hoopla.