Saturday, December 13, 2014

Debate on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: James White vs. Gerry Matatics

Debate on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary



127 comments:

Lloyd Cadle said...

Early Church Fathers that believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary -

PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES, PROTOEVANGELIUM of James, 4,8, AD 150,ibid.,8-9, Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew 10:17, AD 249, St Athanasius of Alexandria, Four Discources against the Arians 2:70, AD 360, St Jerome, Perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary 19, AD 383, ibid.,21, Pope St Siricius 1, Letter to Bishop Anysius AD 392, St Ambrose of Milan, Letters 63:111 AD 396, St Augustine of Hippo, Holy Virginity 4:4, AD 401, Leporius, Document of Amedment, 3, AD 426, Pope Leo 1, Sermons 22:2, AD 450, Council of Constantinople II, Capitula of the Council 2 AD 553.

It is important to believe the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as they lived nearest to the time of Jesus and learned from the Apostles (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, John 21:25, Acts 20:35, 1 Corth 11:2, 1 Corth 11:23, Mark 16:15, 1 Corth 15: 1-2, 2 Thes 3:6, 2 Tim 1:13, 1 Tim 2:2, 1 Pet 1:25, 2 Pet 1:20, 2 Pet 3:15-16).

James White is limited by his self imposed sola Scriptura, as not even the Bible itself teaches sola scriptura.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

How and why has denying Mary's Perpetual Virginity become the shibboleth of Protestantism seeing that the Reformers upheld it or at least didn't see it as a problem? Turretin did too ( a shout out to You Know Who ).

Lloyd Cadle said...

By the way, at the Catholic Council at Ephesus in 431, it was affirmed that Mary shall be called Theotokos, THE MOTHER OF GOD. Here are some of the Early Church Fathers that recognize Mary as the Mother of God:

St Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 5:19:1 AD 189, St Gregory Thaumaturgus, Four Homilies 1, AD 256, St Methodius of Philippi, Oration on Simeon and Anna 7, AD 300, ibid, 14, St Peter of Alexandria, The genuine acts of Peter of Alexandria AD 305, St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 10:19, AD 350, St Athanasius of Alexandria, Incarnation of the Word, AD 365, St Ambrose of Milan, Virgins 2:26 AD 377, St Gregory of Nazianz, Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101, AD 382, St Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2:10 AD 401, Commentaries on Isaiah 3: 17, Theodore of Mopsuetia, The Incarnation 15, AD 410, St Cyril Alexandria, Letters to the monks of Egypt 1 AD 427, St John Cassian, The incarnation 2:2, AD 429, ibid, 2:5, St Vincent of Lerins, Notebooks 12:35, AD 434.

This is important so that we don't make the mistake of Svendsen, and that of Manicheanism which denies Mary's true motherhood as well as the Incarnation. Both the Councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus defend Mary as the Mother of God or Theotokos.

It should be noted that these are Catholic Councils, not the Reformed councils that Scott Clark tries to make them sound like. Mr. Clark likes to go back in time, swipe great Catholic theology, call it Reformed, and delete about 1,000 years of Catholic Church history in the process. Unfortunately, Mr. Clark (the only person that will not let me post on his website) forgets that his authority (the brand of Calvin) is only five hundred years old and has absolutely nothing in common with the Early Church Fathers.

guy fawkes said...

Lloyd,
Did you notice how White pulled the usual Dave Hunt stunt of launching into St. Alphonsus' flowery rhetoric about Mary's intercession in order to shock the Protestants?

Actually, St. Irenaeus not only calls Mary an advocate but actually uses the term "parakletos" ( a fitting name for the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, eh? )

As for White's invocation of Josephus about James being a brother of Jesus, a quick peek at the record will show James was succeeded by his brother Simeon as Bishop of Jerusalem. The first Bishops of Jerusalem were all Hebrews, specifically Levites. This jives with the fact that Mary, of the tribe of David, had Levite kinsmen ( Elizabeth and Zachary ).
James, who was a kinsman, along with his kinsmen, Jude, Joses, and Simeon, were not of the Davidic line.

White's doubts virginity to be a gift. Then why would Paul wish every one could have that gift if it were a curse?

Finally, White does like the fact that Matthew uses the same Greek word Isaiah does, "Parthenos" to describe the virgin who gives birth.

I am not quite through watching this video. I cannot fathom why Ken would post it as a trophy for his side.
James White is all aggressive bluster.
And White's constant recourse to Greek grammar proves that SS is a failure. Luther said that "every German plough boy could be his own Pope".
Ha! Not unless that unwashed,illiterate, wurst and kraut chomping "junger" could read the Greek text!

guy fawkes said...

OOPS! I meant to say "White does not like...".

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
I am reminded of how, when I was a young man, I went to a party and met a Jewish building contractor and struck up a conversation. I mentioned that he had purchased a local landmark, an unused Protestant church and had converted it into a bed and breakfast hotel. He told how he had transformed the big baptismal font into a hot tub.
I was horrified. To think of something set aside, consecrated to God for a holy purpose, profaned by fornicating revelers left me speechless.

It reminded me of how wicked men who desecrate churches use the chalices to guzzle the wine used for Communion and trample the Eucharist underfoot or worse, feed to pigs.

Think of St. Joseph. A holy man who found out Mary was pregnant by God Himself. Knowing Mary was used by God for such a purpose, would he not stand back in reverence? The Bible says he did and that he had intended to until the angel said not to fear to take Mary to his care.

Luther violated a consecrated virgin and encouraged others to do likewise. It is a mystery why he held Mary to be a Perpetual Virgin as he loathed the consecrated life.

Did you post this article in response to the link I sent you on Jerome's refutation of Helvidius?

James Swan said...

Early Church Fathers that believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES

I wasn't aware this was the writing of an early church father. I learn something from Rome's defenders everyday!

James Swan said...

It is important to believe the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as they lived nearest to the time of Jesus and learned from the Apostles

To help Rome's defenders out, I think this sentence needs a little help. It should read as follows:

"It is important to pick and choose from the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as they lived nearest to the time of Jesus and learned from the Apostles."

James Swan said...

How and why has denying Mary's Perpetual Virginity become the shibboleth of Protestantism seeing that the Reformers upheld it or at least didn't see it as a problem? Turretin did too ( a shout out to You Know Who ).

I don't claim to speak on behalf of all Protestants. I'm sure there are some Protestants that deny Mary's perpetual virginity and have no idea why. These are typically the low-hanging-fruit-sort-of-Protestants that are easily befuddled by Rome's defenders. In the circles I travel in, Mary's alleged perpetual virginity is only one aspect of the larger problem of Rome's theology of Mary. Rome over-emphasizes Mary and has created a person with attributes not accounted for in the Biblical record, not traced historically back to the Biblical record, and presents a Marian theology that elevates Mary into an intercessor and a co-redeemer.

Within all periods of church history, there is continuity and discontinuity. It doesn't surprise me or embarrass me as a Protestant to discover the Reformers may have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, for whatever reason. When one closely scrutinizes the Mariology of the Reformers, one finds continuity as well as discontinuity with the Reformers and earlier periods of church history as well as the period in which they lived. It should be obvious, at least with Luther and Calvin, that even with mentioning the perpetual virginity of Mary, they were spinning it differently than what was going on during their time period.

The further the church unshackled itself from Romanism, the more obviously unbiblical Mary's perpetual virginity became.

James Swan said...

And White's constant recourse to Greek grammar proves that SS is a failure. Luther said that "every German plough boy could be his own Pope".

This is off-topic to this discussion, but it does reflect on the credibility of Guy Fawkes. Recall elsewhere he stated:

As for my knowledge of Luther/Reformation studies, I think I know as much if not more than you do. But I am not interested in that sort of petty showing off.

I'm not aware of any credible documentation to a primary source for the quote about the "Plowboy." I'm certainly willing to be instructed by the Reformation research of Mr. Fawkes, and will make it into a separate blog post.

James Swan said...

Ken,

I don't recall ever hearing this debate, so thanks for the link- i'll listen to it during the week. What year was this? Where was Matatics at this point? Was he a Sedevacantist at this point?

I did a quick Google search on the debate- and I found one reviewer using an interesting quote:

"The perpetual virginity of Mary is not a revealed truth which can be clearly demonstrated from the New Testament without the light of tradition. But what is implicit in the Scriptures concerning this dogma gradually came to light in the Church's faith-consciousness. Thus, in the fourth century "ever-virgin' became a popular title for Mary."

The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, p. 119.

I don't have this source, but it appears to be pro-Rome.

Ken said...

This debate occurred in October of 2003.

This, I think was the first debate of Dr. White's that I purchased on DVD back then, when it became available.

Matatics was not a Sedavacantist yet.

I think this was the last debate Dr. White had with Gerry M.. I counted 12 debates that they had with each other, from 1990 to 2003.

Ken said...

Karl Keating says that by 2006, Gerry proclaimed publicly that he was a Sedevacandist, though he doesn't like that term.

Ken said...

It is very clear that the apocryphal writings of the Proto-evangelium of James, the Oedes of Solomon, and the Ascension of Isaiah are "proto-Gnostic" 2nd century writings, full of fables, myths, superstition, allegorical, and have a Gnostic like worldview.

It is these that the vow of virginity and and pertetual virginity of Mary first started; and that Jesus just beamed out of the womb into air without passing through the birth canal of Mary.

Dr. White and Eric Svendsen's book, Who is My Mother? totally crushed the Roman Catholic arguments on this issue.

Guy / Jim -
I was listening to the latest Dividing Line program and at the end on the YouTube page of Alpha and Omega, lots of past debates of Dr. White are now available and then decided to make a blog article.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Guy - keep up the great job of posting here. I don't how much longer I will post here or how often because of time constraints.

Funny you mention Dave Hunt. Scott Clark is the new Dave Hunt with his bashing of the Catholic Church. It is National Enquirer quality stuff. It certainly would not be of the quality of a Dr. Scott Hahn or Jimmy Akin, etc.

Scott Clark has a degree in the authority of Calvin, not church history. It really shows.

guy fawkes said...

James,
Thanks for the honesty. You admit that you don't know why Protestants, low and high fruit pickers both, have made this issue the hill to die on.

So I will have to step up and tell you.
Ecclesiology, James, ecclesiology.

One's view of the Mary parallels on'es view of the Church.

The real Mary, not the one with several squabbling sinful brats vying for attention, had only one Son. She never needed more to fulfill her. She was always focused on Him.
If she had had more children, she would not have been the Woman of Gen 3:15, the one who cooperated in humbling the Serpent and undoing the sin of Adam and Eve.

In the same way, the One True Church has not adulterated the Gospel. She is not mother to thousands of competing and contradicting denominations. She has not compromised her faith and morals with the world ( think contraception, divorce and remarriage, abortion, etc. ).

Both Mary and the Church are spotless Virgins. Both are our Mother. Mary is the archetype and first member of the Church. As a matter of fact, she was the Church.

Does that help, James?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Forget the gnostic nonsense and focus on what the Bible says.

The Bible says Mary was a Virgin not only before and after the conception and birth of Jesus but in partu.


I will let you ruminate on that.

guy fawkes said...

Lloyd,

Yeah, Dave Hunt is/was big on shocking Protestants with stuff from St. Alphonsus or the " Our Life, Our Sweetness and Our Hope" just like James White. He always slipped it into everything he wrote or said on Catholicism.
He used to live in Bend, one of my favorite spots in Oregon. Is he even still alive?

zipper778 said...

Lloyd said:

"Guy - keep up the great job of posting here. I don't how much longer I will post here or how often because of time constraints."

Maybe you don't know it but guy fawkes isn't his real name. Now that you know that would you like to call him a coward and tell him that you're not going to reply to him? Or maybe you just employ double standards when it helps you.

You are the first Roman Catholic that I've seen who has PROMOTED the Protoevangelium of James as an ECF support for Marian doctrines. How do you expect that to support your cause when you promote falsely?

Lloyd Cadle said...

Guy - I attend the Saturday Vigil Mass and the Daily Mass, so I can post a little here this morning.

These Protestant churches are all putting each other out of business. The lastest thing that they are doing, according to the Arizona Republic, is putting in skating rinks in back of their churches so families can skate after they have their symbolic grape juice at their services.

We, at our Parish are ready to start phase three of our building on our new property. We are going to put in a prayer garden for families before and after Mass.

What does that tell you about the theology of each?

Ken said...

Forget the gnostic nonsense and focus on what the Bible says.

The Gnostic non-sense is where the later early church (late 300s-400s and beyond) and Roman Catholic Church got the idea of vows and perpetual virginity. They then read it back into passages like Luke 1:34.

The Bible says Mary was a Virgin not only before and after the conception and birth of Jesus but in partu

Nowhere does the Bible say that. All the Biblical evidence points to Mary being a virgin before Jesus' birth, but not afterward.

"Before they came together" (Matthew 1:18)

"kept her a virgin, until she gave birth to a son" (Matthew 1:25)

brothers and sisters - Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56; Mark 6:3, John chapter 7 - all point to Mary having children after Jesus was born; so she and Joseph had a normal, godly, sexual marriage.

Ken said...

The "in partu" (during the Birth) aspect of the RC dogma is the most ridiculous part of it all. That is Gnostic to think it is somehow unfitting or improper for Mary to bring forth baby Jesus in the normal way, breaking the hymen. to think that that is somehow dirty or bad or improper shows the wrong thinking that started the whole mess.

Ken said...

Problem with the Aramaic/Hebrew/cousins argument is that the NT books were written in Greek; and there is a specific word for "cousin" in Greek, used in Colossians 4:10

Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ

Mark the cousin of Barnabas

cousin = anepsios (English phonetics)

If they were cousins, the NT writers would have used them.

Also, there are other words for close relative, cousin, as in Luke 1:36 "your relative Elizabeth"

Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς

sungenis (English phonetics) The double gamma, "g" is pronouned "ng".

Also, in Matthew 12:49-50 - the point would be lost, if he meant "cousins", because Jesus makes the point that His true spiritual brothers are disciples, believers; and His blood (half) brothers were not believers at that time. ( John 7:5 "for even His brothers were not believing in Him.")

In Hebrews 2:10-11, it says, ". . . for which reason His is not ashamed to call them brothers." (those who are sanctified, the believers, who trust Him (v. 13)

In Matthew 12:50 - He is making this point, the true brothers are those that believe and obey and do the will of God; not His physical brothers who don't believe.

So, giving His mother to John, a believer, a true disciple, a true spiritual brother, was the right thing to do, considering his physical brothers were not believers at that point. They became believers after the resurrection. (I Cor. 15:7; Galatians 2:19)

So, Jesus is not ashamed to call John his brother from the cross over His physical half-brothers, shaming them, because of their unbelief. (see also Matthew 10:32-40)

Galatians and Corinthians were Greek/Gentile areas, they did not speak Aramaic, so even more reason for those books to use the word "cousin" (anepsios) if James was his cousin. But not, he calls him "the Lord's brother". Galatians 1:19

The whole RC argument for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary falls flat.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
The idea of calling all male relatives brother or something like that is not peculiar to Hebrew. My mother in law is from Hungary and says a similar thing about that language. So you can forget using the Bible passages that use the word "brother" as meaning uterine brothers only.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Have you been ruminating? Have I whetted your appetite to know more?
Here's another nibble;

There was no blood shed when Jesus was born. Not from Him. Not from His mother.
Blood would have made both mother and child ritually unclean.

Ruminate more. It get's better. I promise.

Ken said...

When was the Perpetural Virginity of Mary proclaimed as a de fide dogma?

At the 2nd Council of Constantinople ( 533 AD), the 5th Ecumenical Council?

Ken said...

There was no blood shed when Jesus was born.

How do you know that?

Not from Him. Not from His mother.
Blood would have made both mother and child ritually unclean.


That is probably why they obeyed the law of Moses in Luke 2:22-24 - "their purification"

Also, note, "that opens the womb" = Jesus the baby, opened (broke the hymen) the womb of Mary. There is explicit Biblical reference.

"And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

Ken said...

Jesus was without sin, but Mary had sin and a sin nature and sinned in her life.

James Swan said...

It is very clear that the apocryphal writings of the Proto-evangelium of James, the Oedes of Solomon, and the Ascension of Isaiah are "proto-Gnostic" 2nd century writings, full of fables, myths, superstition, allegorical, and have a Gnostic like worldview. It is these that the vow of virginity and and pertetual virginity of Mary first started; and that Jesus just beamed out of the womb into air without passing through the birth canal of Mary.

Perhaps Mr. Cadle has a version of the Protoevangelium of James in his special set of the early church fathers.

James Swan said...

Funny you mention Dave Hunt. Scott Clark is the new Dave Hunt with his bashing of the Catholic Church. It is National Enquirer quality stuff. It certainly would not be of the quality of a Dr. Scott Hahn or Jimmy Akin, etc.Scott Clark has a degree in the authority of Calvin, not church history. It really shows.

Mr Cadle, if you want to display your anger towards Clark after being banned from his blog, please go find a pro-Roman Catholic blog to vent. Any further personal comments on Clark will be deleted.

James Swan said...

guy fawkes said...
James,Thanks for the honesty. You admit that you don't know why Protestants, low and high fruit pickers both, have made this issue the hill to die on.


Guy, you can put words in mouth- but it only demonstrates your reading comprehension ability.

So I will have to step up and tell you. Ecclesiology, James, ecclesiology

Ah, wonderful- the magisterium of an anonymous blogger will now use his private interpretation to make infallible conclusions on spiritual matters.

James Swan said...

Maybe you don't know it but guy fawkes isn't his real name. Now that you know that would you like to call him a coward and tell him that you're not going to reply to him? Or maybe you just employ double standards when it helps you.

Yep- sometimes one dies by their own sword. Guy did this as well when he appealed to Hebrews 12:14- a verse he claims to adhere to while his comments typically display no interest in pursuing peace with all men, or the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.

James Swan said...

The lastest thing that they are doing, according to the Arizona Republic, is putting in skating rinks in back of their churches so families can skate after they have their symbolic grape juice at their services.

Another double standard. Over the years, I've seen a number of Roman Catholic churches having carnivals with all sorts of rides... then of course, there are the weekly bingo games.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Let me see if I can't puff some air into the argument you call "Flat".

In Galatians, Paul says he saw only two Apostles, Peter and James, the "brother" of the Lord. ( Actually, the text says he "consulted" the Pope and only laid eyes on James. But the Papacy is another debate ).

Ken, there were two Apostles named James. One was the son of Zebedee and brother of John. He is James the Greater. We can rule him out immediately.

That leaves only James the lesser.* He was the son of Alphaeus and both brother and father of Jude.
Did you get that? Both brother ( Opening sentence of Jude ) and father (Acts 1:13)? Read it yourself, Ken.

That makes both Apostles named James to have different fathers other than St. Joseph.

By the way, do you really think the Virgin Mary would have a uterine sister named Mary?
I mean, was it common in those days to name two daughters the same name? Mary and "her sister Mary" were both present at the Crucifixion.

Here in Portugal, about half the women are name Mary. Maria de Ceu, Maria de Lurdes, Maria de Fatima, Maria do carmo, Maria de Graca, etc. They just go by the second part of the name. My boss, my neighbor, and my student are all named Maria de Fatima but they all just go by "Fatima" for short.
Even the men can have Maria incorporated into their name. My wife's friend is Maria Jose and her husband's name is Jose Maria. Cute, huh?

But I don't think Saints Joachim and Anne named tow daughters "Miriam". Marian devotion like we have here in Portugal had not started yet.

* make a mental note on this "lesser" word. I have lots more to come.
And keep ruminating!

Ken said...

It seems there are three James who were apostles -
James, son of Zebedee, brother of John, who was martyred in Acts 12:2

James, son of Alpheus

and

James, the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:19; I Cor. 15:7 (half-brother, son of Mary and Joseph) (a different James than the James within the "12"- verse 5,) who was at the Council of Jerusalem and called an apostle, and wrote the book of James. Jude was his brother, also another of the half-brothers of Jesus. 2 of Jesus' half-brothers wrote epistles.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
I ain't buying it.
In Mark 15:40 we meet Mary, the mother of James "the less" and Joses.
In verse 47 she is called the mother of Joses only and in 16:1 the mother of James only. ( I throw this point in only to establish scripture does not always name every brother every time ).

James the LESS. Not James the Least. Less = a comparison between two and only two.
Matthew seems to assume his readers know who the two men named James are. Where do we find two men named James? Only in the lists of Apostles.

This other Mary, seen at the cross with her sister named Mary the Mother of Jesus, has two sons, James and Joses.

Remember in the Papacy Debate I said that there are four lists of the Twelve? Peter always first and Judas always last, yes?
Well, there is more. While the sequence of the other ten individuals is different in each list, the Twelve are arranged in three groups of four. These groups keep the same sequence.
In Group #1 we see Peter and his brother Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, James and John each time.

In Group #3 we see the James the less and his brother/son Jude and Simon ( and Judas Iscariot always last ).

Group #2 may or may not include a set of brothers.

Matthew 13 names Jesus' brothers/kinsmen as James, Joses Simon and Jude.

It appears the Apostles James, Jude and Simon are brothers/kinsmen to each other and to Jesus.

By the way, why would Jude introduce himself and the brother of James in order to establish his credentials if he were also the bother of Jesus? Wouldn't being a brother of Jesus carry more weight with his readers?

Now, a word on Simon the Zealot a.k.a. Simon of Cana/Canaan.
History tells us the Bishop of Jerusalem, James, was succeeded by his brother Simon. ( And the were Levites as I mention earlier today ).
Plus, remember the Wedding Feast of Cana? Mary was invited and seems to be in a position to boss the waiters around. Was she a relative of the bride or groom along with Simon?

Now, recall that we have already established in the case of Mary the mother of James and Joses, that we needn't name every son or brother every times.

Ken, there were only two Apostles named James according to the four listings. One of them was related to Jesus. But he had a different father and a different mother named Mary.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
I see you like to use the term "1/2 Brother".

Could they have been sons of Joseph by a previous marriage? Is it at all conceivable?
It is to the entire Eastern Orthodox Church!

Of course, we Catholics don't buy it. But you will concede it sure FLATTENS your theory like a pancake, huh?

Ken said...

1 Corinthians 15:7 sets the James there apart from "the twelve" in verse 5 ( 1 Cor. 15:5), so that James is not James, son of Alpheus, because he (James son of Alpheus) was in "the Twelve". Also that James, seems to be the same one in Galatians 1:19, who was the half-brother of Jesus, who was at Jerusalem council and wrote the epistle to James.

Lloyd Cadle said...

James - The point of the Arizona Republic article is Protestant churches are now resorting to skating rinks as an attemp at church growth.

Our church was recently a part of Carnival type deal to raise money for the Chaldean Christians that are being persecuted in Iraq. Bingo and Carnivals and the like are usually for the raising of funds for the disabled, homeless or for a church building fund, not as a church growth technique.

The Orthodox do this with their fantastic Geek festivals. At our Knights meeting today I found out that one church in our area is not 13,000 members but 24,000 members.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Guy - Remember that you are talking to a group that is sola scriptura. These folks know nothing about the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and they don't care.

They don't want any part of the truth--that the Early Church Fathers were all Catholic.

To be sola Scriptura (and the Bible itself doesn't make the claim of being sola scriptura), is to limit oneself to an extremely limited view of the Christian Faith. That is why there are some 40,000 ecclesial Christian communities, each following a man with his own authority.

To be sola scriptura is like a man that goes to a doctor with a broken leg, and they only do an MRI on the small toe. You have only a very limited understanding of what you are looking at.

zipper778 said...

Lloyd said:

"Remember that you are talking to a group that is sola scriptura. These folks know nothing about the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and they don't care.

They don't want any part of the truth--that the Early Church Fathers were all Catholic."

Yeah, that's because there are absolutely zero articles on this blog abou the ECFs. This is one of the most hollow accusations that I've seen coming from a Roman Catholic, especially one who has shown to know little about the ECFs (Lloyd believes that the Protoevangelium of James was written by an ECF). There are a TON of articles on here and on other Evangelical blogs that have proven that the beliefs that came out of the Reformation are not new beliefs, they are beliefs that came from the ECFs themselves. In order to accept the Roman Catholic view of the ECFs is inconsistent. The Evangelical view accepts that they won't agree with everything the ECFs have said, but Roman Catholics would have you believe that the ECFs completely agree with the modern Roman Catholic understanding (development of doctrine is a reletively new invention by the RCC).

Also Lloyd, you're still interacting with guy fawkes even though that isn't his real name. That's against your personal principals. Except thag you're obviously inconsistent and self-contradicting. I bring this up simply because you refuse to have real conversations with people unless they expose themselves. My reply is "and you don't want us exposing ourselves!"

Ken said...

The early church fathers and justification by faith alone

http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/the-early-church-and-justification-compiled-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

Justification by faith alone in the early church

guy fawkes said...

Lloyd,

About the early Church Fathers, yeah. Most Protestants don't ever go near them. Others do only after losing the debate using scripture, they then try to muddy the waters with the Fathers.
They like to say the "Roman" Catholic Church started sometimes in the 4th century ( actually, Brittany Burnette admits the Papacy existed in the 3rd ).
This charge won't fly as the rapid growth of the Church, while being persecuted, could have happened only in a highly organized structure that was aware of what it believed and with a definite mission. A congregationalist, presbyterian or even episcopalian hierarchy would not have survived. Certainly, any SS system would have unraveled into squabbling and heresy in a generation.

Protestants, for the most part all say the Fathers apostatized immediately after Constantine's time. Lutherans claim Augustine so they move this date forward to a later date in order to preserve his orthodoxy but they all need the concept of the Church selling out to paganism in order for their theory to work.
Think of that. The Church withstood persecution for 3oo years, never so much as burning a pinch of incense to Caesar and accepting terrible torture and death rather than syncretize with paganism in the slightest. Then, immediately after the Church got legal status, she rushed to absorb Isis worship, idolatry and every form of heathenism as fast as she could. It doesn't make sense.

Jesus told Peter He would build "MY" Church,( not Peter's church... ).
Later, He asked Paul on the road to Damascus, why he was persecuting Him personally. Jesus identified Himself with His Church. Earlier, He had told the Apostles to go to the ends of the earth with His Gospel although He knew those 11 men would all be dead very soon. He promised success to those men telling them He would be with them and send the Holy Spirit to guide them to all truth.

Protestants say the Church Jesus founded fell into heresy right out of the gate.
And that brings us right back around to why they insist Mary ( the Church ) was unfaithful to the Holy Spirit and went on to have a myriad of sinful children.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
How do you know my real name isn't Guy Fawkes and the other name false?

Is TuuretinFan a real name? I mean, if we check his drivers]s license, will we see this bizarre name there?

Does Zipper's nom de plume appear on his Baptismal Certificate?

I think Swan is James' real name but he does seem to be an animal lover what with using a cat as his icon.

I don't care what you call me. Just don't call me late for supper.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
You said the early fathers taught JBFA. Would those be the same fathers who called Mary the New Eve?

Not the New Isis, The New Eve. They were Bible Christians, not half pagan/half Christian. And they chose death rather than corrupt the Faith with pagan beliefs.


Mary was an "advocate". A mediatress. Salvation hung on Mary's fiat. The angel waited for her consent. Read what the Fathers said, Ken.

By the way, where was the outcry by the proto-Calvinists when the pagan Romish Church foisted Isis worship on the sheep? History doesn't show so much as a whimper. Rather, as in the case of the decree at Ephesus, the sheep went through the streets in triumph shouting " Theotokos".

And the Bible doesn't show Mary to have had other children. That is the topic under discussion, not JBFA, my name or Lloyd's "personal principles".
Ken, it wasn't until the time of Helvidius that Mary's Perpetual Virginity was seriously questioned ( forget Turtullian as "he wasn't a man of the Church" ).
Please, can we stay on that sublime topic? We are, after all, talking about our Mother.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

I haven't forgotten that I asserted that the Bible says Mary was a Virgin in partu.

I think you said that we borrowed our beliefs from the Gnostics.
Not so. The belief that Mary was a Virgin even in giving birth predates any date you want to set for saying the Church imbibed pagan mythology into herself.

Ken said...

Guy / Jim wrote:

"You said the early fathers taught JBFA.

My (and others like me) position is more subtle and nuanced than that. Some did, but not consistently. The article I linked to is showing evidence of the existence of the concept in the writings of some of the early church fathers, but it doesn't mean that all of them held to it consistently. It was a mixed bag.

I linked to the article as one example of refuting what Lloyd said, that we are not interested at all in the fathers or church history, but only interested in Sola Scriptura. I think church history is fascinating and interesting; and continue to seek to get a good handle on it and the development of doctrine.

Ken said...

Guy / Jim wrote:

I haven't forgotten that I asserted that the Bible says Mary was a Virgin in partu.

I think you said that we borrowed our beliefs from the Gnostics.
Not so. The belief that Mary was a Virgin even in giving birth predates any date you want to set for saying the Church imbibed pagan mythology into herself.


I showed you that Luke 2:22-24 shows that the baby Jesus opened the womb of Mary, that it was natural and there was bleeding, because it speaks of the days of their purification. They were being obedient to the law of Moses.

Guy / Jim:
There was no blood shed when Jesus was born.

How do you know that?

Not from Him. Not from His mother.
Blood would have made both mother and child ritually unclean.


That is probably why they obeyed the law of Moses in Luke 2:22-24 - "their purification"

Also, note, "that opens the womb" = Jesus the baby, opened (broke the hymen) the womb of Mary. There is explicit Biblical reference.

"And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” Luke 2:22-24

There was no sin on Jesus' part (Hebrews 4:15); but Mary was a sinner; and they were ritually, physically, externally unclean and had to be purified according to the law of Moses.

Ken said...

Also, if Revelation 12 is about Mary, verse 2 says there was pain in childbirth bringing the Messiah into the world, which means it was natural and the hymen was broken and there was probably bleeding.

Revelation 12:1-2

So, with both Luke 2:22-24 and Revelation 12:2, your argument for en partu (during birth) fails.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Let's set Revelation aside for a moment as it is full of symbolism.

Luke's Gospel says the "One born holy will be the...". Lk 1:35
The birth itself is what is holy although some translations say the "Holy One"..." or "will be called holy".

The birth was a holy and miraculous birth just as the Conception was.
Remember, Is. 7:14 says the Virgin will both conceive and give birth as a virgin.

Blood would have meant the birth was not "holy". As for the purification in the Temple, it was like Jesus Baptism. He was baptized although He had no sin to wash away, right?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Okay stop the ruminating and pay close attention.

As I don't read Greek, I am going to lay out only what is easy for me to follow in English from the writings of Fr. Ignace de la Potterie. He goes into much more detail on the grammar used than I shall. If you do understand the Greek, maybe you can find him online and check it out yourself.



John 1:13 was highly contested in the early Church. Was it to be read in the plural,
"those who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man..." or int e singular,
"He is not born of bloodS, nor...".

Notice I wrote "BLOODS" with an S on the end.

Because we don't have the actual inspired text, we must rely on what the Fathers had to say. They said "He was born not of bloods...".

Some Gnostics, the Docetists, deny Christ to have really been born in the flesh from Mary. Therefore they liked this reading as they thought it supported them.

The Valentinian sect of heretics said the passage should be in the plural. They said it was talking about themselves being spiritually born as the elect.

( A quick aside; Tertullian got in the act opposing them which was a good thing but ended up making erroneous conclusions about Mary not remaining a Perpetual Virgin although he does seem to support the Virginity in Partu).

So, the Fathers had to contend with heresies on both sides whether the text was read in the singular ( about Jesus) or in the plural (about followers ).

Because the Fathers believed all believers are born from God in Baptism, the plural reading became the more common one over time as it avoided giving support to the Docetists.
Still, most of the Fathers said this passage is about the birth of Jesus who was born without the will of a human father, and from a virginal mother who had no carnal desires.
Most interesting though is the "blood" part for our discussion.

The actual text uses the plural "bloods". This was dropped in the middle ages to "blood". But in the OT the word "bloods" was used for the blood of menstruation and parturition.

Fr. Raymond Brown, in his book "Mary in the New Testament" touches on this briefly. I have the book and can get you the page numbers if you wish to check it out. I throw him only because your buddy Steve Hays referenced Raymond Brown quite a bit in our discussion on SS a few weeks ago.

Ken, I am just scratching the surface of this. I assume, as a minister, you have some facility with Greek. Check it out and you will see Mary shed no blood in giving birth but was preserved as an inviolate Virgin.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Just a little common sense can help here.
Unless Mary remained a lifelong Virgin, why would anyone believe her when she told Dr. Luke about the angel's visit?

Imagine her saying, "Now Jesus is from the Holy Ghost but Jimmy, Joey, Simey and Jude are all from Joseph".

Yeah, right. Whatever you say, lady.

And think about how irritating it would have been to be one of the normal boys. Mom would favor her darling Jesus over the rest of you.

Everything big brother Jesus would do would be so perfect. Grrrrrrr!

Akindynos said...

"It is important to believe the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as they lived nearest to the time of Jesus and learned from the Apostles" Lloyd said... Well ok.

John Chrysostom, Basil of Cesarea, Origen, Tertullian, And Cyrill of Alexandria said Mary sined. Why don't you believe it?

Epiphanus, Isidore of Sevilla and Bede said they had no idea about Mary's end. Why don't you align with them?

Tertullian even said Mary was a type of the synagogue in de carne christi.

But in the end, well, yes, we agree with the Church Father St Fimilian in his letter to Cyprian:

"But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles... And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter... And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles... Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm

Ken said...

the Greek word for "blood" in John 1:13 is indeed plural - literally "the ones not born from bloods, neither by the will of the flesh, neither by the will of a man (husband, male), but by God, they were born.

οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ’ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.

But that is not talking about Jesus or Mary, but about we who are born again by the Spirit of God.

He is saying in three different phrases, that we are not born again by any physical means - "not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of a male/husband" points to the willful disobedience of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar to try and "will the promise into being" by physical sex and having a baby (Ishmael).

"Of bloods" means "blood relationship" or ethnicity or physical birth. All three phrases point to the same thing.

Those who are the children of God are children of God by faith alone (receiving, believing), through spiritual re-birth.

nothing to do with Mary or Jesus' birth.

Ken said...

Excellent points made by Akindinos

Ken said...

Luke believed her that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit because God the Holy Spirit was guiding Luke (2 Peter 1:20-21) and inspiring his writings (2 Tim. 3:16) and Mary was a virgin before they came together (Matthew 1:18) and Joseph kept her a virgin until (heos hou) she gave birth to Jesus. (Matthew 1:25)

Luke 1:34-35 - The context is "how can this be, since I am not knowing a man" ? (I have never slept with a man yet and am not now)

it does not say, "never", nor does it use future tense "I will not know a man"; rather it is understood as present that she would conceive Jesus without sexual relations with Joseph.

Ken said...

John 1:13 - you have to read John 1:12 also with it.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

"But that is not talking about Jesus or Mary, but about we who are born again by the Spirit of God."

And so said the Valentinian heretics
Tertullian would not have agreed with you.
And since you cannot produce any early manuscripts saying so, and argue against the commentaries on this passage by the fathers, you are just guessing.

Ken said...

in John 1:13

the definite article (hoi -οἳ ) and the word for bloods and the verb, "those that were born) are all plurals.


οἳ (plural - "the ones") οὐκ (not) ἐξ (from) αἱμάτων (bloods) οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ’ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν (third plural Aorist passive - those that were born - goes with the plural definite article and subsumes the whole phrase.

verse 12 says those who receive Christ and believe in His name have the authority to become children of God.

Another passage that points to salvation and justification by faith alone, apart from human works or merit.

guy fawkes said...

Akindynos and Ken,

With the exception of Tertullian, what did those fathers have to say on the issue under discussion?

By the way, even Tertullian did not use the "brothers of Jesus" texts to make his point.

Ken said...

I am not guessing because the phrase is describing verse 12, those that receive Christ, who believe in His name, those who were born not of blood relationships, nor of the desire of the flesh (sex), nor of the will of a male/husband (like Abraham willing to "help" God out and have sex with Hagar, etc.)

but those who are born of God. (spiritually)

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

When Jesus was 12 He accompanied Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem.
No mention of any siblings.

According to your reckoning, after 12 barren years, Mary suddenly exploded into fecundity, bearing at least 4 sons and some daughters too.

Ask your wives, sisters, grandmothers or mothers about this.

That means when Jesus started His public ministry at 30 the oldest sibling would have been 18 at the latest. The others anywhere from 17 down to maybe 10ish.
That means James, who became Bishop of Jerusalem was very young when he assumed office.
It also means some very young siblings remonstrated with their elder brother in public. I think this was forbidden in Jewish society.

It also means Jesus, from the cross, gave Mary to a stranger, the son of Zebedee, rather than to Mary's own sons for safe keeping. This would have been forbidden by the Law.

Oh, and please don't respond by saying Jesus' brothers were unbelievers ( as that would have mattered ). They sure became believers mighty fast if you look in the beginning of the book of Acts.

guy fawkes said...

Ken! Ken! Ken!

You are indeed guessing. Did you actually read my post? You keep telling me what the Bible passage says.

I am telling you that you have no assurance as to that particular Bible passage due to lack of manuscript evidence. You must rely on the commentaries of the fathers.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

This a classic example of how it is you, and not the Catholic, who must "check his mind at the door" as you guys like to say.

The overwhelming evidence from the Bible, the Fathers, the Reformers, and good old common sense says Mary was a life long Virgin.

And even though you say this is not a "salvation issue", you are looking foolish with egg on your face by towing the party line despite being flattened like that proverbial pancake you mentioned.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

I gotta run for a while.
Check out the article James has on this issue. The first thing I asked James when I came on this blog back in September was about something Luther and Zwingli said about those who deny Mary's Virginity in a debate they had on the Eucharist How they understood this issue was the litmus test of sound Biblical exegesis.

Drop it and walk away, Ken. Quit defending what Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Turretin and every top Protestant down to and including John Wesley would not have defended.

Ken said...

οἳ (plural - "the ones") is a relative pronoun, who, the ones who, plural of hos / 'ος = who

which follows and modifies "those who recieved Him, even to those who believe in His name" (verse 12)

the verb at the end of 1:13 is also plural - they were born.

Your argument is nuked.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Ken - Let's take a look at how how the Early Church Fathers understood the formula "faith alone":

In Gal 5:6, the term is used as faith working by charity. In Romans 14:22-23 and James 2:19, it is used as an intellectual belief. Paul uses the faith, hope, charity understanding throughout his writings.

Briefly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines it this way: CCC 18:4; faith: Believe all God says because it is true. CCC18:12; Hope: To desire eternal life, to trust in His promises. CCC 18:22; Charity: Love of God and neighbor. When we are justified, God gives us all three into our hearts.

The Early Church Fathers taught the Gal 5 meaning of faith. Sproul and the Reformers falsely teach justification by intellectual assent alone (Rom 14:22-23 and James 2:19).

Catholics including how the Early Church Fathers taught the formula "faith alone" do not condemn the Gal 5 sense of faith, but they do condemn the intellectual sense the way Sproul and company use the term in James 2:24.

The massive errors of the Reformers is to build their doctrine on the intellectual assent of faith only-which is nothing but pure antinomianism. The Sproul, White Horse Inn and company usage of "faith alone" is condemned by the Catholic Church (including the Early Church Fathers) in James 2:24 because it is un-biblical.




Ken said...

The siblings are not mentioned in Luke 2 when Jesus was 12, when Mary and Joseph took Him to the temple; that is true. good point.

But, since the text's purpose is to focus on Jesus, the argument from silence does not mean that some of his "brother and sisters" were not with Mary and Joseph, or it could be that they left the younger children with some extended family baby-sitter (aunt, uncle, sister of 10 (?) grandmother, Elizabeth and Zechariah, etc.) while they made the journey to Jerusalem.

But even if they were mentioned, Luke would have used the words "adelphoi" (brothers) and adelphai (sisters) and you would invoke Jerome again and you would say "it means cousins".

Ken said...

Lloyd,
No knowledgable Reformed Protestant or for that matter no wider non-Reformed Evangelicals - no one says faith/belief means "mere intellectual assent".

Faith, trusting in Christ is a heart-felt trust and commitment, that has repentance in it also. It is a turning from trusting in self to trusting in Christ as Savior and Lord. It is a trusting in a person, not just mental assent to facts or information. True faith includes content, trust, and commitment of the will. (notitia, assensus, fiducia)

Sproul and others have always preached against "easy believism" or "mere mental assent". I remember when I first became a believer, my baptist pastor also spoke against "mere intellectual assent". (as what James 2:19 is speaking against, the devil has that kind of faith, that God exists and is one.)

In fact, here is Sproul here himself on that very issue; so you are wrong.

R.C. Sproul on what is faith

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-faith/

Ken said...

Also, against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - Dr. White quoted from Basil the church father of Cappodocia in the mid to late 300s and influenced the 2nd ecumenical council in 381 AD.

The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

Also, Irenaeus -
Irenaeus refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was "as yet a virgin" (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn't remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary's being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth to the ground being "as yet virgin" before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin.

Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:

"To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, 'she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;'" (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)

Irenaeus seems to associate "come together" with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

So, now, we also have Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Basil as giving evidence for church fathers and others of their day (Basil personally held to it, but said many others don't hold to it; and that it should not be held dogmatically) on Mary as a virgin before Jesus' birth, but not afterward.

James Swan said...

James - The point of the Arizona Republic article is Protestant churches are now resorting to skating rinks as an attemp at church growth.

Mr. Cadle,

First I have no idea what "the Arizona Republic" is. Second, you originally said, "The lastest thing that they are doing, according to the Arizona Republic, is putting in skating rinks in back of their churches so families can skate after they have their symbolic grape juice at their services." So, first you say, for families, then you say, for church growth, and of course add an insulting jab about communion. How dare you make fun of Protestant communion. If you want to post hateful comments towards your previous affiliations, go somewhere else in cyberspace.

While such churches putting in skating rinks aren't for me, I don't necessarily have a problem with a church putting in a skating rink for families. If a rink helps families enjoy their family, in this culture, I celebrate the rink as something positive for families. Many churches have basketball hoops, or all-purpose rooms for the youth. This isn't a big deal. I bet if I were to check out a few Roman churches in my area, some of them would have gymnasiums attached.

Third, when I came across your comments some time back online on another blog, I recall pointing out the problem of double standards with Rome's defenders. Please, before you hit "Publish Your Comment," re-read your comment and see if what you're saying apples to the Roman sect you now belong to. If you did in regard to the "skating rink" comments, I would hope you realize there have been periods in history where those in charge of the Roman sect spent tons of money on all sorts non-worthwhile things. In fact, Vatican City itself should be sold off and the money given to the poor... don't you think?

Our church was recently a part of Carnival type deal to raise money for the Chaldean Christians that are being persecuted in Iraq. Bingo and Carnivals and the like are usually for the raising of funds for the disabled, homeless or for a church building fund, not as a church growth technique.

You can speak about your individual parish all you want, but it doesn't alleviate the excesses of sinful spending the Roman church has done throughout the centuries. Have you ever heard of the indulgence controversy? Maybe look that up before you go pointing fingers at Protestant churches.

I don't see any problem with a church using its money to support the notion of "family" by putting in a skating rink.

Even if the rink is simply for church growth, It's no different in theory than churches using rock bands now for "contemporary worship" (yep. some of Rome's churches do that as well) in order to attract more people. If spending money to attract people to a church is wrong, then be willing to go all the way and say a church should never spend a cent to do this.

Once again Mr. Cadle: think about what you're posting before you post. If what you post applies to your own church, then your argument isn't helpful to your position.

Akindynos said...

@guy fawkes said...
"Akindynos and Ken,

With the exception of Tertullian, what did those fathers have to say on the issue under discussion?"

Well, i was answering Lloyd, not you. The difference between you and us, is that we can look at the Fathers as who they really were, we are not bound by their interpretations.

I mean, you guyz believe in the assumption of Mary when no Father taught it before the end of the 6th century with Gregory of Tours.

You believe the blessed Mary was sinless when Chrysostom, Tertullian, Origen, Basil and Cyrill of Alexandria said she sinned.

You believe in the immaculate conception when your saints still denied it up until the 12th and 13th century.

You tell us we need Apostolic succession, but Jerome said the whole episcopate became arian during the arian crisis. Apostolic Succession not so great i guess.

You believe in universal atonement but Ambrose of Milan said "if you believe not, He has not come down for you, has not suffered for you" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34044.htm

As Firmilian said, you boast about your customs, but this is false custom.

James Swan said...

Lloyd Cadle said...
Guy - Remember that you are talking to a group that is sola scriptura. These folks know nothing about the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and they don't care


Mr. Cadle,

One thing is quite clear: you're the person who thinks the Protoevangelium of James is a writing of an early church father- just go back and look at what you wrote- it's the first comment on this blog post. If there's someone here who proved his ignorance of the early church fathers, it's you.



Carl Vehse said...

Some still hold to the Semper Virgo Translation of the Bible, where in Matthew 12:48-50, it has Jesus replying:

"Who is my mother, and who are my cousins or stepfather's children from a previous marriage? Here are my mother and my cousins or stepfather's children from a previous marriage. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my cousin or stepfather's son or daughter from a previous marriage and mother."

Akindynos said...

"Lloyd Cadle said...
Guy - Remember that you are talking to a group that is sola scriptura. These folks know nothing about the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and they don't care"

I'm a former Eastern Orthodox, so that just makes me smile. But i wonder, why Hefele was opposed to the Pastor Aeternus dogma of papal infaillability? Was he part of a secret sola scriptura group? Was he James White secret agent back in the past?

Or why Martin Jugie, the greatest roman catholic byzantinist, said the idea of Mary's Assumption does not go back to the Apostles and has no authentic patristic support and never existed in the Early Church?

James Swan said...

Some still hold to the Semper Virgo Translation of the Bible

Dr. White made a similar point in the debate. Here's something from an old blog post:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/04/help-with-matthew-118-and-mary.html

"Are you married? If so, try telling your father-in-law this: "I did not have relations with your daughter until we got engaged." See what he thinks of that. After all, if your father-in-law is as perceptive as you are, there's no way he'll make a spurious assumption about pre-marital relations between the two of you based on such a statement."

Lloyd Cadle said...

PROTOEVANGELIUM of JAMES -

It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin, and her husband Joseph as an elderly widower that had children previously. He was chosen by God as a spouse for the purpose of protecting her and to honor Mary's vow to remain a Virgin. By the way, it was not very un-common for many beautiful women to remain virgins in early church history. Many of the persecuted saints were virgins.

The PROTOEVANGELIUM of JAMES, though not on a par with Sacred Scripture, is one of the earliest documents that we have. It was written around AD 150 and may contain accurate historical information.

Lloyd Cadle said...

James - Wow! I can't believe how heated you got over the skating rink-of all things!

I have four kids still living at home, if you are ever in the Phoenix area we will take the kids to a church for a skate around and have a beer and a shot of Jack Daniels.

Peace brother!

zipper778 said...

Lloyd, James is aware of what the Protoevangelium of James is, but like him I'm surprised that you listed an apocryphal work on par with the ECFs. The ECFs were critical of the document too. But this must be what Roman Catholicism is reduced to. If you can't find any credible sources for many of its doctrines, including the perpetual virginity of Mary, just run to any document no matter how false it is.

So far I'm blown away at the ignorance of some Roman Catholics. Just go along with documents that are false. That'll convince Evangelicals.

EA said...

"It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin, and her husband Joseph as an elderly widower that had children previously."

This is the Epiphanian view. That is also the traditional position of Eastern Orthodoxy. Is that the view to which you subscribe? That would be unusual. Most Roman Catholics believe that the Hieronymian view is correct. In fact, St. Jerome considered those who believed the Lord's brothers to be the sons of Joseph by a former wife were "following the ravings of the apocryphal writings." [Jerome, Commentary on St Matthew 12.49.]

guy fawkes said...

Akindynos,

Since you were once Orthodox, I guess that makes you an expert. My mom too as she was Greek Orthodox.
And my father was a Lutheran of sorts so that answers James' inquiry about my credentials when it comes to Luther.

Ha! Just knowing people of a certain faith does not qualify anyone as an expert. Unless you actually applied yourself, osmosis isn't enough.

guy fawkes said...

Andykinos,

The topic is not what the fathers taught on anything but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Do you have anything to contribute on that?

I am sure we will eventually address your concerns but right now they are not the topic. Can't we establish the rightness or wrongness of this point before moving on as the other Marian prerogatives touch on this one?

Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr ( all martyrs say she was ).

Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine and Jerome agree.

The Gospel or James, while not canonical, was read since around 150 A.D.and shows the Virginity of Mary In Partu not to have been a later innovation borrowed from the pagans. Please remember, the martyrs who would rather be burnt alive, fed to beasts or hacked to bits before syncretising with idolatry, believed Mary was a Virgin all here life.

And they prayed to her is seen in the
Sub Tuum Prasidium as she was, in the words of Irenaeus, an "advocate".

Lloyd and I stand in that Tradition.

Your tradition is only about 200 years old. Your John MacArthurs and ilk don't even agree with your own king pins.
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and TurretinFan, oops! I meant to say Turretin, all believed differently than you, sir.

guy fawkes said...

Lloyd,

Our Baptist friends don't drink so don't waste an invitation on them for the Jack Daniels.
As for the ice skating, well, since they don't dance, hopefully no music will be not playing in the background as it could come dangerously close to dancing.

Now, although I don't dance, I do imbibe. And if I get enough of that golden elixir you speak of in me, I might even stagger out on the ice try skating.

I will be there!

James Swan said...

The PROTOEVANGELIUM of JAMES, though not on a par with Sacred Scripture, is one of the earliest documents that we have. It was written around AD 150 and may contain accurate historical information.

May contain?

James Swan said...

guy fawkes said...
Andykinos, The topic is not what the fathers taught on anything but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Do you have anything to contribute on that?


I refer you back to an earlier comment Lloyd Cadle made::

It is important to believe the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as they lived nearest to the time of Jesus and learned from the Apostles

I refer you back to an earlier comment I made:

To help Rome's defenders out, I think this sentence needs a little help. It should read as follows:

"It is important to pick and choose from the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as they lived nearest to the time of Jesus and learned from the Apostles."


James Swan said...

The Gospel or James, while not canonical, was read since around 150 A.D.and shows the Virginity of Mary In Partu not to have been a later innovation borrowed from the pagans.

For a helpful discussion on the Proto and other spurious sources about Mary, See J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian doctrines, pp. 492 and following.

James Swan said...

Our Baptist friends

I am not a Baptist.

Lloyd Cadle said...

James - I gave whole listings of what the Early Church Fathers taught on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Again, the Early Church Fathers were Catholic. They were not Baptist, Calvary Chapel, Reformed or Lutheran.

The problem with Reformation sources is that they take out everthing Catholic written by the Fathers rather than looking at the whole body of work.

Then they take a few stray words by the ECF and try to make them say sola Scriptura and other new inventions by the Reformers, out of context.

The folks that don't believe in Sacred Tradition (2Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, etc. etc., see all my Scripture citations above) are extremely limited on Christianity. And, self imposed, I might add.

They insist on sola scriptura when not even the Bible teaches sola scriptura.

By the way, why doesn't James White and his buddy Sproul make up their own Creeds to fit the Protestants theology rather than use the Catholic ones? That would keep them busy until the Lord comes!

Akindynos said...

@Lloyd

"The folks that don't believe in Sacred Tradition (2Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, etc. etc., see all my Scripture citations above) are extremely limited on Christianity. And, self imposed, I might add."

I believe in Sacred Tradition. I just can't find it anywhere. I really want to believe in the assumption of Mary, but Epiphanius, Isidore of Sevilla and Bede told me it was not sacred Tradition. Martin Jugie, your greatest byzantinist scholar told me it it not a Tradition going back to the Early Church.

I really want to believe Mary was sinless. But Chrysostom, Basil, Tertullian, Origen and Cyrill of Alexandria told me she sinned.

I reallly want to believe the sacred Tradition about all of it, but the Early Church told me it was not part of it.

Where can i find this sacred Tradition? If you have an early list of all its content, a Canon of the Sacred Tradition, i really want to have it.

Akindynos said...

@Lloyd

"Again, the Early Church Fathers were Catholic. They were not Baptist, Calvary Chapel, Reformed or Lutheran."

I'm not baptist, but in fact, Tertullian was a baptist. In fact, Chrysostom was batised rather late, maybe he had a baptist father.

You are just boasting about tradition and the Fathers, but it is rather pointless. Your first comment on the protoevangelium of James says much about your credentials when it comes to the ECF and early Church History.

"Again, the Early Church Fathers were Catholic. "

Many in the Early Church were arians, not "catholics":

"Valens and Ursacius and others associated with them in their wickedness, eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms, and to say they had not denied that He was a creature, but that He was like other creatures. At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian." Jerome, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3005.htm

guy fawkes said...

James,
I know you aren't a Baptist. So you can take a nip of the jack Daniels and ken can be your designated driver..

PS, I notice you didn't say, " I am not a friend".

guy fawkes said...

Akindynos,

Just so you know, some people put off baptism as long as they could, even until their deathbed. That was because, unlike modern Baptists and Presbyterians, they believed in Baptismal regeneration and that it washed away all temporal debt too.

guy fawkes said...

Akindynos,
"I really want to believe Mary was sinless. But Chrysostom, Basil, Tertullian, Origen and Cyrill of Alexandria told me she sinned."

Let me help you then.

And just for fun, you can throw our own Thomas Aquinas into he mix as he had some problem with original sin.

These men all wrote before there were any de fide statements on these issues so they were free to speculate on a lot of things we now hold to be closed to debate. ( Roma locuta, causa finita ).

As for Mary having vainglory, doubt or whatever, remember that it was more because she was a woman and not so much as she was a sinner. The misogynistic Fathers said if the big tough fishermen ran away, a woman would to. And all women are weak, frivolous and given to vainglory by nature.

You say you were Orthodox. The Orthodox say they don't believe in the Immaculate Conception. But in fact, they do. They always implicitly believed it until Rome defined the dogma and then, out of spite denied it.
You say the Fathers said Mary was a sinner. In fact, they just hadn't put 2+2 together yet.

The Orthodox keep the feast of St. Anne conceiving Mary on Dec 9. Why keep the feast of the conception of a sinner?
Isn't it ironic that we keep the feast on the 8th? Hmmmmmm.

The Fathers saw Mary as "Ever Virgin". Yet she bore Christ as an Ever Virgin in partu. This means she was exempt from the curse of Gen 3:15 that befell all women with original sin.

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

The fact that she bore no children with Joseph also says she was not part of the lot of the rest of fallen womankind. She was dedicated to remaining a virgin so she had no "desire for her husband".
Although Joseph was her protector, he did not "rule over" Mary.

Reflecting upon Mary's Perpetual Virginity, the Church came to fine tune her understanding of Mary and in so doing they dismissed the erroneous speculation of the fathers.


Akindynos said...

@guy fawkes said...

"These men all wrote before there were any de fide statements on these issues so they were free to speculate on a lot of things we now hold to be closed to debate. ( Roma locuta, causa finita )."

So Rome does not hold to the Faith of the Fathers, thanks for the admission. Roma Locuta, causa finita, euh yes, you can claim so. I can also claim this. Does not make it relevant.

"You say you were Orthodox. The Orthodox say they don't believe in the Immaculate Conception. But in fact, they do. "

Basically, all your then rent about it is irelevant, since i'm former EO, no longer am.

Try to read correctly next time before starting pointless rent.

Akindynos said...

@Guy

"The Orthodox keep the feast of St. Anne conceiving Mary on Dec 9. Why keep the feast of the conception of a sinner?
Isn't it ironic that we keep the feast on the 8th? Hmmmmmm."

I think this is the most idiotic statement a rc ever made since Nostra Aetate. Let me look at the today feast day in your calendar:

"Blessed Honoratus Kozminski" http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintofDay/

Was he immaculately concieved? You are really embarassing.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Akindynos -

Some of the Early Church Fathers that proclaimed Mary as the new Eve. Like the new Adam in Romans 5, the Early Church Fathers speak of Mary's immaculate nature:

Ephraim the Syrian, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8, AD 361, Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, 17:4, AD 210, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100, AD 155, Timothy of Jerusalem, Homily of Simeon and Anna, AD 400, St Augustine, Holy Virginity 6:6, AD 401 and Nature and Grace 36:42, AD 415, Ambrose of Milan, ibid., 2:2:7, Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30, AD 387, John the Theologian, The Falling asleep of Mary, AD 400, Gregory of Tours, Eight books of Miracles 1:4, ibid, 1:8, AD 584.

I am sorry if I sound rude. I am tired of doing research for lazy people. If you (all Protestants) really want to know the what the Bible and Christianity teach, you will have to study Sacred Tradition and the Early Church Fathers. (Please stay away from Reformed sources, as they don't adhere to or respect the teachings of the ECF.) When most folks do that they become Catholic, like so many Lutheran, Reformed and Baptist pastors do. Once they go back beyond 500 years towards the 2,000 year old mark, they see the truth.

A few good sources of the Early Church Fathers are: The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The writings of the Fathers down to AD 325 (ten volumes), edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series 1, and series 2 (fourteen volumes each), edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace., A work entitled, "the thirty eight volume set, published between 1867 & 1900 for T & T Clark of Edinburgh, Scotland.

eltheoldsoul said...

Lloyd did you even read what Akindynos wrote? Challenge his statements.

Challenge this:

"I really want to believe Mary was sinless. But Chrysostom, Basil, Tertullian, Origen and Cyrill of Alexandria told me she sinned. "

and this:

"I reallly want to believe the sacred Tradition about all of it, but the Early Church told me it was not part of it."

and:

"I believe in Sacred Tradition. I just can't find it anywhere. I really want to believe in the assumption of Mary, but Epiphanius, Isidore of Sevilla and Bede told me it was not sacred Tradition"

Good luck! Since you are part of the True Church, I expect Rome's finest to finally destroy Protestantism and finally answer all of Protestantism's contentions against Rome.

guy fawkes said...

Akindynos,

My pointless "rent"? You used this word twice so I assume it was intentional.
I don't understand. My rant, if that is what you meant, is hardly pointless.
Rather, my exposition of the the glories of YOUR mother is, ah... well,...um,... sublime.
Please read correctly before starting pointless rant.

guy fawkes said...

Lioyd,

" I am tired of doing research for lazy people."

I hear your brother!

And then, after posting an easily found quote, assuming you have given a satisfactory answer, Ken will then demand the source document, and then probably in Greek.
They should read Luther, Zwingli, TurretinFan,( OOPS! scratch that. I keep misspelling that name. I meant, Turretin ) Calvin and Wesley before starting that "pointless rant" Akindynos accuses us of.

guy fawkes said...

eltheoldsoul,

The Assumption is not the subject. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is under fire.

Until you guys concede that Lloyd and I have carried the day on this point, then and only then shall we move on. Twice now, I have explained how the other prerogatives follow upon this one. Stay on target, okay?

guy fawkes said...

Protestant Guys,

We need to discuss St. Joseph.

The Bibles says Mary was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. It says this when the term "overshadow" is used by the Angel Gabriel. This is the very word used for Boaz spreading his cloak over Ruth.

Once Mary had conceived by someone other than Joseph, she was off limits to him although he could still house and provide for her according to the Law.

We see an example of this in the case of Absalom who violated David's concubines. The law required that David lock them away and provide for them but they were "as widows of a loving man".

St. Joseph realized that it was by the Holy Spirit that Mary had conceived and felt unworthy much as Peter did when he said, " Depart from me Lord as I am a sinful man!"

The Angel had to remind the poor carpenter of his dignity as the "Son of David" and therefore the only one qualified to care for the one who would sit on the throne of David and the Queen Mother. Mary was to bring forth the child but Joseph was to name Him.

Boys, I admire your tenacity. You are going down swinging. But you are indeed going down on this one. I guarantee it!

Akindynos said...

@Lloyd

"Some of the Early Church Fathers that proclaimed Mary as the new Eve. Like the new Adam in Romans 5, the Early Church Fathers speak of Mary's immaculate nature:"

No, New Eve is simply to show that where Eve failure propagated sin, Mary's faith allowed Jesus to destroy sin. Nothing to do with their immaculate nature.

By the way, i see you confuse being free from temporal sins, and the immaculate conception. You confuse being immaculate because of later purification, and immaculate conception.

" Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, 17:4"

In the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian calls Mary a type of the Synagogue. You should read what you post at least.

St Augustine never said Mary was sinless, neither Ambrose. In fact, Augustine quoted from Ambrose to show except Christ, nobody was concieved free from sin.

Now just take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew)." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Instead of doing some copy and paste, try to know your subject and read the Fathers you pretend to talk about.

Akindynos said...

" He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours— for God's work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, while the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. " Tertullian, on the flesh of Christ http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm

Akindynos said...

"His object was to teach us that, as was likely, the unexpected fate of our Lord was an offence unto His mother, and that His exceeding bitter death upon the Cross almost banished from her heart due reflection; and, besides the insults of the Jews, and the soldiers also, who probably stayed by the Cross and derided Him Who hung thereon, and who presumed, in His mother's very sight, to divide His garments among themselves, had this effect. For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: "I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How |633 was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?" The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought; for we shall do well to remember, that the character of these events was such as to awe and subdue the most sober mind. And no marvel if a woman fell into such an error, when even Peter himself, the elect of the holy disciples, was once offended, when Christ in plain words instructed him that He would be betrayed unto the hands of sinners, and would undergo crucifixion and death, so that he impetuously exclaimed: Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall never be unto Thee. What wonder, then, if a woman's frail mind was also plunged into thoughts which betrayed weakness? " Cyrill of Alexandria Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12; 25 But there were standing by the Cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_12_book12.htm

guy fawkes said...

)
Ken,

I was scrolling through our chat to see if I had neglected to address your assertions and came across this statement made by you;


"Luke 1:34-35 - The context is "how can this be, since I am not knowing a man" ? (I have never slept with a man yet and am not now)"

Actually, the tense used in English is not present continuous, as you assert, but present simple.
Mary does not say, for instance, " I am not smoking at the moment".
Rather, she says, "I don't smoke".
This tense is used for habitual states, not present temporary actions. ( Check it out in the KJV ).

You also reveal that you never bothered to read the stuff I sent you about Jerome refuting Helvidius. Shame on you.

If you had, you would never have brought up "heos hu" ( Joseph did not know her UNTIL...".

Jerome mentions several places where Before/until are used in the Bible.
My favorite one is, " Michel bore no children UNTIL the day she died".

ARE WE TO ASSUME MICHEL BORE CHILDREN AFTER SHE DIED?

guy fawkes said...

Akindyos,

You are a man after my own heart! Thank you so much for posting this,

"And no marvel if a woman fell into such an error, when even Peter himself, the elect of the holy disciples, was once offended, when Christ in plain words instructed him that He would be betrayed unto the hands of sinners, and would undergo crucifixion and death, ... What wonder, then, if a woman's frail mind was also plunged into thoughts which betrayed weakness? "

Yesterday, this is exactly what I said but without the actual quote from Cyril. ( Ken likes sources ).
And just to be nice to me, you tossed in the part about Peter being "the elect of the disciples". But this Peter stuff is more for the discussion on Matt 16 and Keys. Thanks just the same though for killing two birds with one quote.
Mary's doubt, vainglory and fear were because she was a woman and not because she was a sinner according to the misogynistic Fathers.
And Peter was chief Apostle,that's for sure.
Thank you so much!

PS Akindyos, Ken is probably wondering if you are on my side or his right now. Ha!

guy fawkes said...

Lloyd,
These die hard Protestant boys won't give up. They are so foolhardy as to keep charging headlong upon us only to impale themselves upon our pikes.

Lets take inventory of what we have spanked them on so far;

1. "Brothers" does not necessarily mean brothers german in the Bible.

2. "UNTIL" does not mean a change after a point in time.

3. Joseph was not allowed to touch Mary as she had conceived by another. (Forget the fact that the "another" was the Holy Spirit Himself" ).

4. The verb tense used in the Annunciation shows a habitual state of virginity and not just temporary abstinence.

5. Mary was a Virgin in Partu according to Bible.

6. Jesus still had no siblings when He was twelve years old.

7. Jesus would have violate the Law by entrusting Mary to a non family member if any were alive.

8. James, Joseph, Simon and Jude, had a different mother and a different father than Jesus.

9. The Orthodox say the siblings were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. They have not rebutted this yet nor can they.

10. The Reformers Luther and Zwingli would class Ken and Akindyos with Helvidius as a heretic if they were alive today.

11. Common sense says that no woman in the world would ever go on to lead "a normal married life" after conceiving the Savior of the World miraculously as Mary did.

!2. The Fathers are overwhelmingly with us, not them on this issue.


I am having fun and just getting warmed up. I have more ammo ready but don't know if I want to over-kill our opponents ( It wouldn't chivalrous ). I wish they would wave th white flag and concede they cannot prove Mary to have been anything but a Perpetual Virgin nor can they withstand our assertions.

James Swan said...

Guy Fawkes: I was thinking that if you aren't using your real name, would you consider changing your blogger name to Don Quixote? I think it better describes your method of interaction.

guy fawkes said...

James,
I just checked the "Proof of Rome's Mary" comments and saw your scathing rebuke of me as being "toxic and mocking".
I clicked on this thread in anticipation of another rebuke for my "mocking and toxic" demeanor here too.
Thankfully, I don't see one.

You Protestants say this is an issue of no importance to salvation. Your forefathers all sided against you modern Protestants on this issue. Yet they managed to hold to their version of JBFA and SS.

IOW, you guys can walk away from this and still stand firm on the Reformation. What is your interest in this topic other than anti-Catholicism, pure and simple. Why is it the hill to die on for you guys if it is not a salvation issue.

Meanness. Anti-Catholic meanness.

For Catholics, this is indeed a salvation issue. Don't expect to attack Mary's Perpetual Virginity and not be met with robust response.

As for Don Quixote, I would love to tell you about the religious convictions of Miguel Cervantes and the "Marian" battle of Lepanto.


Lloyd Cadle said...

Akyndyos -

Speak for yourself. I don't cut and paste anything. If that is the way you roll, so be it.

Whether it be the dispensational Bible College that I graduated from, WELS, LCMS or the Dutch Reformed churches that I served and taught for, every single pastor that I served for will vouch that I read and studied tons of books. No short cuts.

I am not bragging, but I can teach Reformed, Lutheran, dispensational and Catholic theology using Scripture from memory without notes.

I will leave the Elmers glue for you!

Lloyd Cadle said...

Good stuff Guy!

eltheoldsoul said...

"The Assumption is not the subject. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is under fire."

Fair enough then. Ken made some comments here. Good luck here.

Ken said...

Guy/Jim wrote:
Actually, the tense used in English is not present continuous, as you assert, but present simple.

Only the context can tell you if it is continuous present or simple present. It takes skill in Greek and exegesis to determine that. You obviously have not studied Greek.

Mary does not say, for instance, " I am not smoking at the moment".
Rather, she says, "I don't smoke".
This tense is used for habitual states, not present temporary actions. ( Check it out in the KJV ).


It can be either one depending on the context. Since the angel uses "will bear a son" (future) and Mary says, "how can this be since I do not know a man?" ( I am still a virgin), she herself understood the angel as the immediate past and present time, including the past; but it does not mean in the far future, after the firstborn son, she still does not or will not "know a man". She would have said, "I have never and will not in the future know a man", if had been a vow of virginity.

You also reveal that you never bothered to read the stuff I sent you about Jerome refuting Helvidius. Shame on you.

I have read Jerome's work before and his arguments seeking to refute Helvidius. Jerome was not logical at this point, and very negative against marriage and women in general. Most scholars admit that Jerome and the other EFC around that same time, were ascetic men seeking to rid themselves of lust; and Augustine's pre-conversion life of debauchery and fornication contributed to his views.


If you had, you would never have brought up "heos hu" ( Joseph did not know her UNTIL...".

Not true, because "heos hou" is different than just plain "heos". (In the Michel example - 2 Samuel 6:23). Chrysostom also used that same example, but failed to give examples of "heos hou".

Svendsen's book shows all of this; and has refuted Jerome and Chrysostom and RCC apologetics on this issue.

Jerome mentions several places where Before/until are used in the Bible.
My favorite one is, " Michel bore no children UNTIL the day she died".

ARE WE TO ASSUME MICHEL BORE CHILDREN AFTER SHE DIED?


Again, 2 Samuel 6:23 has only "heos", NOT "heos hou"

καὶ τῇ Μελχολ θυγατρὶ Σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν

zipper778 said...

Lloyd, you're talking to people who don't use their real names now?

Anyway, guy said:

"You also reveal that you never bothered to read the stuff I sent you about Jerome refuting Helvidius. Shame on you."

I don't understand your logic guy on a number of points.

1) It's okay for you to ignore articles that some wrote because William Webster was the author, but when you "think" Ken didn't read your article you attack him for that. I'm trying to follow your logic here, but it's difficult.

2) You accuse Evangelicals of not following the reformers in EVERYTHING they believe, but you get the right to disagree with the ECFs because they disagreed on unsettled matters. That's not very logical. At least Evangelicals are honest and let the ECFs speak for themselves. Rome would have you believe that there was never any disagreement until people hated the Chuch so they ran off and started their own.

Whatever happened to the Roman Catholics that use to post here. A few years ago I remember there being some good discussions/debates with them and they had decent arguments. Lloyd will not respond to you if you use an internet handle that's not your real name (something that I could care less about), unless he agrees with you (or if you're Akyndyos for some odd reason). Plus he doesn't seem to have a good handle on the ECFs (ex. Protoevangelium of James). And then guy seems to have a shotgun approach and posts multiple times in a row and also contradicts himself quite often. I miss the good old days I guess.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

I guess your knowledge of Greek is superior to the guys who put together, ( in English ) the King James Version.

I told you earlier I don't read Greek. I have taught ESL English though and the tense used in the KJV, the Douey-Rheims, Darby Bible, American Standard, and English Revised is present simple.
All of the translations that use, "I am a virgin", also use present simple.
A few use present perfect, " I have not known a man", but even that bad translation supports neither your position nor mine.
Check it out for yourself.
http://biblehub.com/luke/1-34.htm

Think it through, Ken. If Mary was mature enough to conceive the Son of God, wouldn't she have known how babies are made?

If Mary had been planning to have conjugal relations with Joseph, she would not have asked such a bizarre question.

You said context matters. It does indeed. For a betrothed woman to say, "I know not man" makes absolutely no sense unless she was intending to remain a virgin.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Jerome was defending consecrated virginity against Helvidius. You are correct.

Elijah, John the Baptist, Paul and Jesus were all committed to the consecrated life so you can drop the shot about it being anti-marriage.

Jesus said in Luke 18:29-30;

"Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

They will receive "eternal life" Ken. Not just rewards but eternal life itself.


The Catholic Church teaches penance, asceticism, and "crucifying the flesh".

It also takes seriously Jesus' words about "eunuch for the Kingdom of heaven".

The Reformers, like Helvidius before them, denied all this.

You accused Jerome of being anti-marriage. You forget we hold marriage to be a Sacrament. You don't.
Calvin denied marriage to be a Sacrament saying marriage was no holier than shoe making or shaving.
Luther gave a nobleman permission to have two wives as the Bible nowhere explicitly prohibits it.

Catholicism and only Catholicism follows the Bible's admonition to " keep the marriage bed undefiled". That means we don't permit Christian spouses to use condoms, diaphragms, potions and other concoctions designed for use in brothels.

Please, don't even insinuate that Protestantism holds marriage to be loftier than we do. Don't.

Akindynos said...

Cyrill writes that Mary thought of Jesus as a decieved man. Conclusion of roman catholics: mary is sineless. What a twisted mind.

guy fawkes said...

Akindynos,

And did Cyril also say Mary went on to have at least four more sons and some daughters too?

Your constant attempts to hijack the discussion off of the Perpetual Virginity implies you are ready to concede defeat.

Yes or no?

James Swan said...

guy fawkes said...James,
I just checked the "Proof of Rome's Mary" comments and saw your scathing rebuke of me as being "toxic and mocking". I clicked on this thread in anticipation of another rebuke for my "mocking and toxic" demeanor here too.
Thankfully, I don't see one.


I'm hopeful you'll actually learn to put your content in a respectable form worthy of interaction if I keep pointing out how toxic you are.

From my Reformed perspective, I think that no one really realizes the complete depths of their sin- the Heidelberg Catechism points out in Lord's Day 2, Q & A 5 that people have a natural tendency to God and their neighbor. It's only by the work of Christ that anyone comes to see our hatred, and it's only by the Holy Spirit that any of us can even begin to overcome this hatred. When you post your mean-spirited comments- it just demonstrates to me that you hate God and your neighbor.

You Protestants say this is an issue of no importance to salvation. Your forefathers all sided against you modern Protestants on this issue. Yet they managed to hold to their version of JBFA and SS. IOW, you guys can walk away from this and still stand firm on the Reformation. What is your interest in this topic other than anti-Catholicism, pure and simple. Why is it the hill to die on for you guys if it is not a salvation issue.

I made this comment previously, but it's worth repeating:

Within all periods of church history, there is continuity and discontinuity. It doesn't surprise me or embarrass me as a Protestant to discover the Reformers may have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, for whatever reason. When one closely scrutinizes the Mariology of the Reformers, one finds continuity as well as discontinuity with the Reformers and earlier periods of church history as well as the period in which they lived. It should be obvious, at least with Luther and Calvin, that even with mentioning the perpetual virginity of Mary, they were spinning it differently than what was going on during their time period.

James Swan said...

Akindynos said...

Just a quick note here to say thanks for your comments, especially those that point out how Rome's defenders pick and choose from the ECF's. My schedule this month doesn't allow me to get involved with everything posted, so I appreciate the examples you provided.

Lloyd Cadle said...

We are dealing with the majority consensus on the major teachings of the ECF's, not a few isolated quotes here and there.

When studying them you have to look at the whole body of work.

When that is done, you see what many Reformed and Lutheran pastors have determined when they converted to Rome, that the Early Church Fathers belong to the Catholic Church. That is a fact of church history that haunts the Reformed.

zipper778 said...

Lloyd said:


"When that is done, you see what many Reformed and Lutheran pastors have determined when they converted to Rome, that the Early Church Fathers belong to the Catholic Church. That is a fact of church history that haunts the Reformed."

I always thought it was the other way around. When the Roman Catholic finds that the maority of the ECFs didn't subscribe to the papacy (and even spoke out against the idea of one), they have to invent theory's like doctrinal development, or the RCC's beliefs were there it was just in seed form so you couldn't tell.

I am completely secure in my faith in Jesus Christ. Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.

James Swan said...

Typo in my previous comment:

From my Reformed perspective, I think that no one really realizes the complete depths of their sin- the Heidelberg Catechism points out in Lord's Day 2, Q & A 5 that people have a natural tendency to hateGod and their neighbor. It's only by the work of Christ that anyone comes to see our hatred, and it's only by the Holy Spirit that any of us can even begin to overcome this hatred. When you post your mean-spirited comments- it just demonstrates to me that you hate God and your neighbor.

James Swan said...

We are dealing with the majority consensus on the major teachings of the ECF's, not a few isolated quotes here and there.


This is one of the main differences between the way a defender of rome reads the ECF's and those in my camp read the ECF's.

For the defenders of Rome, they begin with particular doctrines, and then sift through the ECF's to see what will support them- however vaguely.

For those in my camp- the ECF's were... the ECF's. They said some good things, they said some not so good things. Each ECF is allowed to be exactly who he was.

James Swan said...

I always thought it was the other way around. When the Roman Catholic finds that the maority of the ECFs didn't subscribe to the papacy (and even spoke out against the idea of one), they have to invent theory's like doctrinal development, or the RCC's beliefs were there it was just in seed form so you couldn't tell.

Well stated.

kalbertini said...

In the first fecenturies after Christ^s ascension many hailed Mary as having children after Christ.The early fallible church fathers hailed sex in marriage as a necessary evil tainted with sin & used Mary^s virginity to promote virginity.But the jewish tradition hailed sex in marriage as good & modern scholarship points to a greater probability Mary had children after Christ.Mary^s perpetual virginity is not a dogma.The second Council of Constantinople mentioned it in passing,that is not good enough to be a dogma.Dogma as a infallible teaching came about much later on the the church^s history,it was adopted at Vatican 1.

L C Ringo said...

What? Jesus just beamed out of the womb into the air?