tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post116903462250705777..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Bibliographic Tedium on the Reformers and Perpetual VirginityJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-48450983133388364522010-01-11T06:24:04.366-05:002010-01-11T06:24:04.366-05:00Pinoy,
Any materials that I've written are o...Pinoy, <br /><br />Any materials that I've written are on my blog, or over at aomin. simply use the search engine to track down what you're looking for.<br /><br />Regards,<br /> JamesJames Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-4672654070302829422010-01-10T19:32:31.438-05:002010-01-10T19:32:31.438-05:00James,
I need the material for my apologetics, ca...James, <br />I need the material for my apologetics, can you please send it to my email?<br /><br />jay2005_ras@yahoo.com<br /><br />Thanks! Godbless!John Joseph Rashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14259870081602251048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1169517164346205902007-01-22T20:52:00.000-05:002007-01-22T20:52:00.000-05:00Sure, I'll be glad to read it. Unless there's some...Sure, I'll be glad to read it. Unless there's something Svendsen discovered that the Lutherans up until the 20th Century missed, as well as Calvin and the Church Fathers also missed about the exegesis of the word "until", I can't imagine what Svendsen has discovered.<BR/><BR/>I have to find out what your e-mail address is so that I can give you mine. I'll go back to the main page to see if I can access it there.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the material.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1169436002003463062007-01-21T22:20:00.000-05:002007-01-21T22:20:00.000-05:00Anonymous- I don't think the Reformers believed th...Anonymous- <BR/><BR/><I>I don't think the Reformers believed that the Scriptures teach that Mary lost her virginity.</I><BR/><BR/>For Luther and Zwingli, correct, For Calvin, he doesn’t, to my knowledge, comment on it.<BR/><BR/><I>The Scriptures merely say that she was a virgin at the time of Christ's birth. For example, the Scriptures also teach that Christ will be with us UNTIL the end. Does that mean He won't be with us after the end? So likewise when the Bible says that Joseph did not know Mary UNTIL she had given birth to a son. I think it's possible for UNTIL in this verse to be understood in such a way as it's also understood with reference to Jesus being with us until the end- that is to say it's just emphasizing that Joseph did not know Mary until she had given birth to Jesus, but this does not necessarily imply that he had conjugal relations with her after.</I><BR/><BR/>I would direct you to Eric Svendsen’s book, “Who Is My Mother?” Chapter 1. Eric provides about 20 pages of detailed exegesis on Matthew 1:18-25. What you as a possibility, Eric shows is not a possibility. What you say the Scriptures “merely say” Eric demonstrates what they actually do say. <BR/><BR/><I>I once heard how someone asked the great Lutheran theologian Francis Pieper (I believe Francis was his first name.) that if a Lutheran theologian was orthodox in all doctrinal areas but rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary, would that orthodox still be considered an orthodox Lutheran theologian. Pieper responded that if the theologian was truly orthodox in every doctrine with the exception of the semper virgo, then he would still consider the theologian to be orthodox. The point being made was that up until recently (the 20th Century), highly respected theologians held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. If Matthew 1:25 so obviously contradicted the perpetual virginity of Mary, then wouldn't this have been clearly rejected long before Luther and Calvin (and Pieper for that matter)?</I><BR/><BR/>I’m not familiar with Pieper. Theologians can hold to all sorts of things. Simply because they do, doesn’t mean they are correct. The real question is, “What does the Bible actually say?” I’m convinced that the detailed exegesis I’ve read on this subject shows that Matthew 1:18-25 implies Mary did not remain a virgin. Other than some of the early Reformers, I’d be interested in seeing how many of the great Lutheran or Reformed theologians that lived say, 100 years after the Reformation began, understood Mary’s virginity. <BR/><BR/><I>I'm not saying the Bible proves the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'm just saying I can see how Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Pieper did not necessarily think that the Bible disproved it either. Thus I think it entirely possible that the Bible gives a Christian the freedom to either believe it or disbelieve it. It doesn't seem to be very important.<BR/>Now if a doctrine truly attempts to deify Mary, then of course that would be wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>I’d be curious to see what you think of Svendsen’s exegesis on the passage in question, and if you would still hold the position you do. I’d be willing to scan it, and send to you via e-mail.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1169268043913397422007-01-19T23:40:00.000-05:002007-01-19T23:40:00.000-05:00I don't think the Reformers believed that the Scri...I don't think the Reformers believed that the Scriptures teach that Mary lost her virginity. The Scriptures merely say that she was a virgin at the time of Christ's birth. For example, the Scriptures also teach that Christ will be with us UNTIL the end. Does that mean He won't be with us after the end? So likewise when the Bible says that Joseph did not know Mary UNTIL she had given birth to a son. I think it's possible for UNTIL in this verse to be understood in such a way as it's also understood with reference to Jesus being with us until the end- that is to say it's just emphasizing that Joseph did not know Mary until she had given birth to Jesus, but this does not necessarily imply that he had conjugal relations with her after.<BR/><BR/>I once heard how someone asked the great Lutheran theologian Francis Pieper (I believe Francis was his first name.) that if a Lutheran theologian was orthodox in all doctrinal areas but rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary, would that orthodox still be considered an orthodox Lutheran theologian. Pieper responded that if the theologian was truly orthodox in every doctrine with the exception of the semper virgo, then he would still consider the theologian to be orthodox. The point being made was that up until recently (the 20th Century), highly respected theologians held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. If Matthew 1:25 so obviously contradicted the perpetual virginity of Mary, then wouldn't this have been clearly rejected long before Luther and Calvin (and Pieper for that matter)?<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying the Bible proves the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'm just saying I can see how Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Pieper did not necessarily think that the Bible disproved it either. Thus I think it entirely possible that the Bible gives a Christian the freedom to either believe it or disbelieve it. It doesn't seem to be very important.<BR/><BR/>Now if a doctrine truly attempts to deify Mary, then of course that would be wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1169205104453005132007-01-19T06:11:00.000-05:002007-01-19T06:11:00.000-05:00anonymous-My answer would be as follows: the speci...anonymous-<BR/><BR/>My answer would be as follows: the specific Marian doctrines put forth by Rome tend to deify Mary. Thus, I see the extra-biblical doctrines attributed to Mary as nothing other than a violation of the commandment against idolatry. the Scriptures are clear on Mary's lack of perpetual virginity (Matthew 1:18-25). <BR/><BR/>That being said, I think the Reformers, (Luther and Zwingli) would be an example of people who held to this Marian doctrine and had "an evangelical understanding of the Gospel." But, I think the reason they did hold this belief was the result of a well entrencthed tradition, rather than exegesis of the Biblical text. Each generation comes with its own set of non-biblical traditions.<BR/><BR/>I can cut these guys some slack- because I realize that the paradigm change that Luther and Zwingli went through didn't mean that all of sudden they were evangelicals with little fish pins on their jackets, and bumper stickers on their horses. Rooting out unbiblical traditions takes time.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I don't cut any modern day evangelicals holding to this belief any slack. The Biblical exegetical material on who Mary was is vast. If a modern-day evangelical attempts to hold this view, they are clearly in error, and should be exhorted according to the clear teachings of Scripture.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1169174468638470312007-01-18T21:41:00.000-05:002007-01-18T21:41:00.000-05:00What's wrong with believing in the perpetual virgi...What's wrong with believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary? So long as one truly has an evangelical understanding of the Gospel, what difference does it make if one chooses to believe in the semper virgo (and sincerely believes that this does not contradict Scripture) or not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1169121634444258122007-01-18T07:00:00.000-05:002007-01-18T07:00:00.000-05:00ea-unbelievable isn't it? A guy translating Zwingl...ea-<BR/><BR/>unbelievable isn't it? A guy translating Zwingli from the Latin for an adult education class? Please.<BR/><BR/>If the guy would've just told the truth- he would stop embarrasing himself. But, he serves as an example of showing that people reason with the heart. They are committed to their presuppositions.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1169121445984689512007-01-18T06:57:00.000-05:002007-01-18T06:57:00.000-05:00Frank-You said what i was going to- the argument t...Frank-<BR/><BR/>You said what i was going to- the argument they use is faulty, because what Luther, Calvin, or whoever says is not really important.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1169042722408314092007-01-17T09:05:00.000-05:002007-01-17T09:05:00.000-05:00I read your interaction with 'opusdei' on the CARM...I read your interaction with 'opusdei' on the CARM boards and like you I'll be plenty surprised if 'he' had translated this Zwingli quote from the Latin set in support of an 'adult education' class at his church. In my opinion, it would be a very rare Catholic church indeed that would provide a post-graduate level survey of Reformational thinking on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I can't wait for a few weeks to pass to see how his books fared during the move.<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work James.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.com