Perpetual Virginity of Mary

I don’t think it’s so clear because both Luther and Calvin upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary and the perspicuity of Scripture:

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?
Luther and Calvin on Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Luther:

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.

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.

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.

Calvin:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

[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.

Zwingli:

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.

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.

This brought to you by Shellie…. I just wanted to have it handy for the next time it comes up.

 

Who Hates Whom?

Still revisiting the recent exchanges and pulling out bits as they jump out at me… I found this interesting considering both James and I replied charitably, never giving Fisher reason to make any such assertation…

Weekend Fisher:

I look at this (post and comments) and I just want to talk to you two as people, not as “Roman Catholics who hate my stinkin’ Lutheran guts”, y’know.

James H:

In the end all we can do is keep doing what we are doing. Pope John II Apologizes to the Church in the East for Events that happen 1000 years ago and the response is nothing but stony silence from the East. Ditto for the Reformation and everything else.

Catholics dialogue with Lutherans and what is the response. Well, one of the major Lutheran Synods in the United States still says the Pope is the Anti Christ:
____________
“43. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308″

Uh, as to the first bolded segment, nooooooooooo this isn’t the case.  The Pope recognizes, as do all Catholics who are in agreement with the Magisterium etc, that our separated brothers and sisters in Christ are just that, brothers and sisters in Christ. 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

They are even considered Catholic, though in imperfect union with the Church.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”³²⁰

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”³²² Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”³²³ With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”³²⁴

The second bolded segment is also complete error.  The doctrines of the Church are in keeping with the teaching of Christ and the apostles. It was the fathers of the reformation who rebelled against the authority placed over them and removed themselves from fellowship with the Church. Who embraced antiChristian doctrines, rejecting the teachings passed down to us from Christ and the apostles down through the Early Church Fathers throughout the ages.  

As to yet another charge… the Pope does not claim to be God, but the servant of God and the Servant of His people, the Vicar of Christ, the steward left to care for the Kingdom until Christ returns. 

 As to forgiveness, Christ never said through grace alone or faith alone… Here’s what Christ DID say…

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

and…

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following, in absolute accord with sacred scripture:

 977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”⁵²¹ Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that “we too might walk in newness of life.”⁵²²

The rest is just as specious as the bits addressed, yet we are the ones accused of hate?

 

Dave Armstrong Anti-Lutheran?

The following exchange (clips, not the entirety) was taken from the comment section of Response  to Weekend Fisher.  James has done a lovely job of answering many of the assertions made and so I’m putting some of them up in small groupings for ease in reading and referral.

Weekend Fisher:
I’ve talked to other Lutherans who’ve been to Dave Armstrong’s place, and they tell me it’s a mix of 1) stuff we’ve always known – nobody ever claimed Luther was a saint!, and 2) a fair bit of slander, some demonstrably false. I’ve had Armstrong’s site mentioned to me by another Lutheran as “prime example of how low RC’s will stoop in misrepresenting the facts to smear protestants” and “really blatant, hate-blinded animosity towards Luther”.

James H:

Mr. Armstrong is one of the few that does serious Dialogues that are pretty docent decent material. The people he converses with are serious Protestant and Evangelicals and if they are not rabid Anti-Catholics it is done with respect. Further I suggest you go to the section that only defend his scholarship but also go to the pieces that defend Luther against what Mr. Armstrong thinks are false attacks.
Of note are the various articles
In that section that is the header for those he says:
___________________________
SEVENTEEN PAPERS WHERE I DEFEND LUTHER AGAINST MYTHS AND BUM RAPS, CITE HIM IN AGREEMENT, OR TAKE A FAIRLY NEUTRAL STANCE TOWARDS HIS OPINION
(for those who falsely think I am some sort of “Luther-hater” or “Luther-basher”, beyond disagreeing with his theology, and can never praise or agree with him) [I wrote in a paper dated March 2000: “I (like many Catholics) do admire him in certain ways. I like his passion and boldness and apparent sincerity and good intentions (though thoroughly deluded and wrongheaded). He had a great devotion to the Virgin Mary and to the Eucharist.” And in February 2001, I posted on the Catholic Convert Message Board:
“I have never maintained that Luther was “evil” or essentially a “bad” man, nor have I ever denied his good intentions . . . No one can find those sentiments on my website.”
_______________________Also of note please look at his main Web sites especially as he debates the segment of the Traditionalist wing of the Catholic Church that think Only Catholics will be saved and other nonsense.