← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill
Thread ID: 13986 | Posts: 32 | Started: 2004-05-31
2004-05-31 06:41 | User Profile
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [url]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM[/url]
All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely "tradition" with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.
Let's see what the Founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as "silly," "desperate," "obviously false," "unbiblical tradition" here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them. I guess the same "errors" are egregious to a different degree, depending on who accepts and promulgates them -- sort of like the Orwellian proverb from Animal Farm: "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others."
General
Whatever may be the position theologically that one may take today on the subject of Mariology, one is not able to call to one's aid 'reformed tradition' unless one does it with the greatest care . . . the Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular . . . . .
In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .
{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}
The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).
{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }
Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .
[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands.
{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}
Martin Luther
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Huldreich Zwingli
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she
brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
{"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}
2004-05-31 14:22 | User Profile
This speaks to what is, in my opinion, the greatest danger with the idea of Sola Scriptura. Everybody can come up with their own, misinformed opinions of what the Bible says, with little or no factual basis, and be taken seriously. Furthermore, because even the traditional interpretation can be cast aside fairly easily if a new interpretation is "in the Bible," there is very little to hinder the acceptance of novel theology, such as the Rapture. We don't even trust the masses to interpret Shakespeare; why do we trust them to interpret books written in another language in a totally different cultural context?
2004-05-31 16:16 | User Profile
I'm convinced that most people who claim they are Christians have never read the New Testament.
My logic is this, folks pick up the Bible, and since the Bible starts with the Old Testament that's where they begin, and unfortunately where they end too.
Folks never get to the New Testqment and the words and ideas of Christ. They get stuck in the ancient jew fiction of the Old Testament, the very things that Christ had come to correct.
If the New Testament was in the front of the Bible the world would be a much better place in my opinion. Funny how the Protestant Refomers translated the New Testament first---but---it somehow ended up at the back of the Bible.
2004-05-31 19:35 | User Profile
Outside of the Gospel's, where Mary is mentioned only for historical reasons, Mary is totally ignored. I see no theological reason for special veneration of Mary. And, it appears to me that Catholics place Mary in a position that does cause theological problems.
We've discussed this before. The Bible never says nor implies that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus's birth. IMO, the Bible implies just the opposite: Matthew 1:25 appears to destroy the perpetual virginity of Mary. "[Joseph]knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS" NIV. "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus" KJV.
Besides, married people have sex. The Bible writers never feel the need to make clear that Jesus's brothers and sisters were not more distant relatives. Paul never bothers to mention Mary, let alone claim she remained a virgin.
I'm not sure what the protestant reformer believed, I would expect them to be heavily influenced by Catholic doctrine. False beliefs among Christians even existed in the first century (that's the point of some of Paul's letters), let alone many centuries later.
2004-05-31 20:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Outside of the Gospel's, where Mary is mentioned only for historical reasons, Mary is totally ignored. I see no theological reason for special veneration of Mary. And, it appears to me that Catholics place Mary in a position that does cause theological problems.
I must counter that I think Protestants' complete indifference to the Mother of God places Mary in a position that causes theological problems. This is the women who is "full of grace," who all generations will call blessed, and who literally bore the Son of God. It is a mistake to take the attitude that she is basically just some lady. These verses are often taken to refer to her: God saves man, but not without man. He seeks him who will receive Him. And God sought in the world for a person through whom He might come amongst men. God sought a "ladder" which would unite heaven with earth (Genesis 28:12). God sought a "thorn bush" which would not be burned by the presence of His Divinity (Exodus 3:2). God sought an "ark"ââ¬ânot one in which to place the tablets of the Law, but for the Word Incarnate Himself (Genesis 10:5). He sought a "golden vessel" for the manna, the Bread That came down from Heaven, for His Son (Heb. 9:4; John 6:33). He sought a "sanctuary" and "tabernacle," in which He might "take up His abode among-men" (Exodus 25:8). The time came for the incarnation of God, and the ancient "figures for the time then present" (Heb. 9:9) were realized in the tabernacle and ladder with a soul, in the bush, and ark and vessel which had a soulââ¬âin the Virgin. * [QUOTE=Happy Hacker]We've discussed this before. The Bible never says nor implies that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus's birth. IMO, the Bible implies just the opposite: Matthew 1:25 appears to destroy the perpetual virginity of Mary. "[Joseph]knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS" NIV. "But he had no union with her until* she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus" KJV.
But the word "until" does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word "until" and words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God's righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what does it mean when it says: For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet? (ICor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: As the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He take pity on us (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, "On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.") The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] Besides, married people have sex. The Bible writers never feel the need to make clear that Jesus's brothers and sisters were not more distant relatives. Paul never bothers to mention Mary, let alone claim she remained a virgin.
Well, yes, but most married people aren't the single individual chosen out of all human history to bear the divine Son of God. This verse is often helf to refer to Mary's womb: * "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2)*.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I'm not sure what the protestant reformer believed, I would expect them to be heavily influenced by Catholic doctrine. False beliefs among Christians even existed in the first century (that's the point of some of Paul's letters), let alone many centuries later.[/QUOTE] Yes, the Protestant reformers were indeed heavily influenced by Catholic doctrine. For example, they believed in the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and that salvation comes through Him alone, among other things. Since the earliest Church Fathers, the Orthodox, the Catholics, and the old school Protestants all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I think I will stick with that, as opposed to what some guy reading his translated New Testament came up with.
2004-06-01 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]This speaks to what is, in my opinion, the greatest danger with the idea of Sola Scriptura. Everybody can come up with their own, misinformed opinions of what the Bible says, with little or no factual basis, and be taken seriously. Furthermore, because even the traditional interpretation can be cast aside fairly easily if a new interpretation is "in the Bible," there is very little to hinder the acceptance of novel theology, such as the Rapture. We don't even trust the masses to interpret Shakespeare; why do we trust them to interpret books written in another language in a totally different cultural context?[/QUOTE] Brilliantly summed up-- in a winsome Chestertonian way!
Isn't it interesting that even within Biblical scholar circles at the very highest levels (Chicago, Duke, Harvard, Ecole Biblique, Hebrew Univ., Yale Divinity, Catholic Univ., et al.), there are disparate interpretations on those parts of the Bible often thought to be the most perspicious?!! (Not that interpretation and understanding of the Bible makes sense apart from the community from whence the Scriptures came-- e.g., the same community to determined the canon).
2004-06-01 07:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Outside of the Gospel's, where Mary is mentioned only for historical reasons, Mary is totally ignored. I see no theological reason for special veneration of Mary. And, it appears to me that Catholics place Mary in a position that does cause theological problems. [/QUOTE]
Besides various scriptural support, I think the main issue gets down to whether one assumes the Bible is the sole repository of information on Saint Mary. The fact is the Church has all kinds of information on the Mother of God, the apostles, and others. This information wasn't included in the New Testament, but that doesn't mean isn't true. Just a moment of consideration would indicate that if EVERY piece of information was included in the New Testament, you'd need a hand truck to carry your Bible!
The Mother of God remained a virgin until her death. This has been the continuous tradition among Orthodox, Catholic, and was accepted even the early Protestants. So how does this simply get tossed aside by any Christian today? Basically, a person must presume that for at least 1600 years, Christians didn't know what they were doing - and that obviously includes even the Apostles themselves. But, alas, 2,000 years after the fact, someone can plop open the Bible and based upon their private interpretation, boldly proclaim that all these Christians were wrong! Its an amazing thing when one thinks about it.
2004-06-01 07:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]The Mother of God remained a virgin until her death. This has been the continuous tradition among Orthodox, Catholic, and was accepted even the early Protestants. So how does this simply get tossed aside by any Christian today?[/QUOTE]
Because at bottom when considering what justifies us before God, it is quite simply, irrelevant. No disrespect to Mary intended.
*As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.*
Ephesians 2: 1-10
2004-06-01 09:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Because at bottom when considering what justifies us before God, it is quite simply, irrelevant. No disrespect to Mary intended.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. A two millenium Christian tradition such as this is not simply cast aside by spinning a Bible verse or two. I'll put my confidence in that Tradition as opposed to private interpretation of the NT.
As was shown in the article I posted, the early Protestants had no problem with most, if not all, of the traditional teachings on St. Mary. The problems seems to have come in with the Old Testament-obsessed Puritans, who were at least partially guilty of Judaizing.
I'm convinced that some of this simply gets down to a reactionary attitude towards anything that seems "Catholic." But again, Calvin, Luther, and other main figures of Protestantism substantially agreed with the Catholic/Orthodox position in regard to St. Mary, so strictly speaking its not even a Protestant view, but rather a progression or innovation that has developed within Protestantism.
2004-06-01 11:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]Brilliantly summed up-- in a winsome Chestertonian way! [/QUOTE] Thank you, sir. You are far too kind.
[QUOTE=Jeanne D'Arc]By the way, I think we should keep our eyes on the ball. We're all Christians. That's what matters.
Indeed. I am not trying to bash Protestantism, I am just concerned that Sola Scriptura gives Protestants insufficent defense against the evils of modernism and novelty.
By the way Jeanne, welcome to the boys' club. :wink:
2004-06-01 12:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Happy Hacker]Outside of the Gospel's, where Mary is mentioned only for historical reasons, Mary is totally ignored. [/QUOTE]
That isn't right, HH.
Tradition has it that the Church commissioned Luke to write a Gospel, apparently with the intention of including the Christmas story. To ensure that he had the story right, Tradition also has it that Luke visited MARY HERSELF, who was living with St. John the Evangelist someplace (Epheseus, I think), in accordance with Christ's request just before He died, as we know from the Scriptural accounts.
Thus, the Gospel of Luke is in a way the "Gospel of Mary." Tradition refers to Luke as the "iconographer of the Mother of God." All of the information that we have about Christ's early life apparently came from her directly.
Mary is the most intimate witness that we have to the life of our Saviour.
In addition, the Church most emphatically did NOT ignore Mary from the very beginning. She was often depicted in the CATACOMBS. Pregnant with Christ, standing next to Him. And from the very earliest times.
We give respect and honor to all to whom it is due, as St. Paul commands us. Presidents, ambassadors, kings, the Pope himself - all are due the ceremonies of earthly respect.
But Mary is the first Christian, Mother of God, and Mother of the Church. Then how much more should we we afford her, the Queen of Heaven, than we grant to earthly powers?
Warmest regards,
Walter
Note to Jeanne: it is my opinion that chivalry died when men ceased venerating Mary, the Mother of God.
2004-06-01 12:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Texas Dissident]Because at bottom when considering what justifies us before God, it is quite simply, irrelevant. No disrespect to Mary intended.[/QUOTE]
But Tex, my brother in Christ, that's like saying the Christian teaching on the nations, as just one example, is irrelevant because we are saved by faith.
The point you're missing here, IMHO, is that all of it is integral to God's plan of salvation. No part can be taken from it without detracting from Christ and His Sacrifice.
Similarly, Mary was an integral part of that plan. That in no wise detracts from Christ and His sacrifice, but rather magnifies it.
Magnifies, that's the key word, I think.
Mary herself said that her soul magnifies the Lord. Think about that. Mary's soul magnifies God. And she magnifies him for us. There's no accident that Luke put that in the Gospel. Our relationship with Mary is one of the tools God gave us to help draw closer to Him. Her soul is a magnifying glass for the Holy Spirit in this world.
We lose so much when Mary's not standing next to Christ, as the very earliest Christians portrayed her.
They wanted her close to them, and so should we.
2004-06-01 16:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] Indeed. I am not trying to bash Protestantism, I am just concerned that Sola Scriptura gives Protestants insufficent defense against the evils of modernism and novelty.[/QUOTE]
Have faith in the Holy Spirit, Quantrill. God is infallible. Men are fallible and by nature depraved.
The Orthodox Church and her Bishops, keepers of 'sacred tradition', can't even agree amongst themselves what traditions are sacred and what sacraments are essential for salvation.
2004-06-01 16:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]But Tex, my brother in Christ, that's like saying the Christian teaching on the nations, as just one example, is irrelevant because we are saved by faith.
I don't think that's what I said, Walter, but nonetheless, are you stating that Mary must be venerated, prayed to, worshipped etc. to attain salvation in the Catholic Church?
Similarly, Mary was an integral part of that plan.
So was John the Baptist. In fact, Christ himself said this in Matthew 11:
"What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written:
" 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear."
Further, from Luke 8:19-21:
"Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you." He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice.""
It seems Christ himself didn't put his mother on the pedestal that Rome built for her. No disrespect to Mary or Rome intended, but I'll go with Christ.
We lose so much when Mary's not standing next to Christ, as the very earliest Christians portrayed her.
So Christ is not sufficient???
Listen, we disagree here, but right now we need to focus our efforts towards a common enemy elsewhere. Therefore this is my last post on this thread.
God bless.
2004-06-01 16:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Have faith in the Holy Spirit, Quantrill. God is infallible. Men are fallible and by nature depraved.
Agreed, except for the Total Depravity reference.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The Orthodox Church and her Bishops, keepers of 'sacred tradition', can't even agree amongst themselves what traditions are sacred and what sacraments are essential for salvation.[/QUOTE] Actually, Tex, there is almost complete agreement on matters of basic theology in Orthodoxy. The Orthodox still use the same liturgy, still pray the same prayers, and still teach the same dogmas that they have for centuries with virtually no alteration. It is true that the Bishops sometimes disagree with each other, but the Bishops are not infallible, and they have no ability to speak ex Cathedra, as the Pope claims. They are only infallible when they are all gathered in an Ecumenical Council and make specific pronouncements for the entire Church. Furthermore, the original Apostles and Paul sometimes disagreed with each other. They were human, after all.
Furthermore, since Protestants are more divided than any other Christians, with innumerable and increasing groups and subgroups, the charge of disharmony among the Orthodox rings a little hollow.
2004-06-01 17:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Agreed, except for the Total Depravity reference.
St. Paul says we are dead in our transgressions. Dead is dead and dead men don't make choices, much less possess "free will" in spiritual matters. "There is no one righteous, no not one."
Actually, Tex, there is almost complete agreement on matters of basic theology in Orthodoxy.
Exactly. Key word -- almost
Furthermore, since Protestants are more divided than any other Christians, with innumerable and increasing groups and subgroups, the charge of disharmony among the Orthodox rings a little hollow.[/QUOTE]
That was not my point. My point was to answer the critique of Sola Scriptura and disarray against Protestants issued by the Orthodox. In the words of Walter, "Shoemaker, tend to thy last." :)
2004-06-01 17:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The Orthodox Church and her Bishops, keepers of 'sacred tradition', can't even agree amongst themselves what traditions are sacred and what sacraments are essential for salvation.[/QUOTE]
On Traditions with a capital T, there's no disagreement - no one can deny the virginity of the Mother of God and be Orthodox.
2004-06-01 17:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]On Traditions with a capital T, there's no disagreement - no one can deny the virginity of the Mother of God and be Orthodox.[/QUOTE]
As an evangelical, confessing Lutheran, I say no one can be a Christian that denies the virgin birth of Christ our Lord. I didn't need any Orthodox bishop or Pope to tell me that either. No disrespect intended.
Brothers, let us not fight here when there is another common enemy at the gate.
2004-06-01 17:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]St. Paul says we are dead in our transgressions. Dead is dead and dead men don't make choices, much less possess "free will" in spiritual matters. "There is no one righteous, no not one."
I take that scripture to mean that no one succeeds in being completely righteous, not that no one is able to try. I freely choose to believe in free will. :wink:
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Exactly. Key word -- almost As Wild Bill has posted, there is agreement on all the important points.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] That was not my point. My point was to answer the critique of Sola Scriptura and disarray against Protestants issued by the Orthodox. In the words of Walter, "Shoemaker, tend to thy last." :)[/QUOTE] Tex, the fact that you can perhaps pick nits and find some small disagreements among Orthodox Bishops or monks does not refute the charge that Sola Scriptura is an inadequate defense against heresy. Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism has been wracked by modernism to the same extent that Protestantism has. When theology is "every man for himself" there is no safe harbour of tradition to which to cling.
2004-06-01 17:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]As an evangelical, confessing Lutheran, I say no one can be a Christian that denies the virgin birth of Christ our Lord. I didn't need any Orthodox bishop or Pope to tell me that either. No disrespect intended.[/QUOTE]
I think we agree on that point, but when we go beyond that is where we get all the areas of disagreement. For example, the Dormition of the Mother God, where upon her physical death St. Mary went directly to Heaven like the prophet Elijah and one or two others in the OT. In this case, Christ took her to Heaven. Protestants, of course, reject this since its not descibed in the Bible, but its been the teaching of the apostolic Church for 2,000 years.
Dormition of the Theotokos [url]http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/worship/dormition.html[/url]
2004-06-01 17:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Brothers, let us not fight here when there is another common enemy at the gate.[/QUOTE] As you wish. However, I didn't think we were fighting.
As Chesterton said, "The thing I hate about an argument is that it always ruins a discussion."
2004-06-01 17:54 | User Profile
Y'all are determined to suck me into this, aren't you? :)
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I take that scripture to mean that no one succeeds in being completely righteous, not that no one is able to try. I freely choose to believe in free will. :wink:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" John 6:44
Tex, the fact that you can perhaps pick nits and find some small disagreements among Orthodox Bishops or monks does not refute the charge that Sola Scriptura is an inadequate defense against heresy.
That's just simply not true. The traditional, orthodox essentials of the true Christian faith are alive and well outside of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. By default, you are making the argument that God is not able to keep and preserve his Truths throughout the ages via the Holy Spirit and His written Word in the Holy Scriptures, but requires men and human institutions to do what He is unable. I am completely unwilling to cede to that argument.
When theology is "every man for himself" there is no safe harbour of tradition to which to cling.[/QUOTE]
But it's not every man for himself, but rather the Holy Spirit and every man. Don't sell the Spirit short.
2004-06-01 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]As you wish. However, I didn't think we were fighting.[/QUOTE]
You're right, fighting is too strong a word. I do enjoy the discussion, though.
2004-06-02 16:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] That's just simply not true. The traditional, orthodox essentials of the true Christian faith are alive and well outside of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
I guess that depends on what you consider "essentials."
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]By default, you are making the argument that God is not able to keep and preserve his Truths throughout the ages via the Holy Spirit and His written Word in the Holy Scriptures, ...
No, I am making the argument that God IS able to keep and preserve his Truths throughout the ages via the Holy Spirit and the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. One of the Church's most important actions was to codify the canon of Scripture. Scripture is, therefore, a part of the Holy Tradition of the Church, and did not fall fully-formed from the sky.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]... but requires men and human institutions to do what He is unable. I am completely unwilling to cede to that argument.
Are you of the opinion that the Bride of Christ, the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that you confess in the Nicene Creed is merely a "human institution?"
2004-06-02 19:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I guess that depends on what you consider "essentials."
I would say the central beliefs expressed in the Apostle's Creed is a good example. Triune Godhead, virgin birth of Christ, Resurrection, Holy Spirit, etc.
Scripture is, therefore, a part of the Holy Tradition of the Church, and did not fall fully-formed from the sky.
It did not fall from the sky, sure, but it was inspired by God and is infallible. I would argue that Tradition is Holy if and when it agrees with Scripture. Not vice versa. The Holy Scriptures are our number one primary source and nothing can contradict them.
Are you of the opinion that the Bride of Christ, the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that you confess in the Nicene Creed is merely a "human institution?"[/QUOTE]
Certainly it is the bride of Christ, as you state, but not because of anything that men do, but rather entirely the work of the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost. That's the key thing to keep in mind and why we must always weigh everything in light of the Scriptures.
2004-06-02 19:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] It did not fall from the sky, sure, but it was inspired by God and is infallible. I would argue that Tradition is Holy if and when it agrees with Scripture. Not vice versa. The Holy Scriptures are our number one primary source and nothing can contradict them. [/QUOTE] The Church created the Scriptures; the Scriptures did not create the Church. It seems odd to trust the judgement of the Church to create the Canon, but then to claim that that very Canon indicates that you should discard the very institution that created it.
2004-06-02 20:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The Church created the Scriptures;the Scriptures did not create the Church. It seems odd to trust the judgement of the Church to create the Canon, but then to claim that that very Canon indicates that you should discard the very institution that created it.[/QUOTE]
If that institution begins to err in doctrinal matters, without the Scriptures how would we know? Therefore the Scriptures, while first canonized by the early Church, are the Word of God and the first source of knowledge of God. It seems odd to trust the judgment of "Fathers" or "Tradition" irregardless of what the Holy Scriptures (divinely inspired Word of God given to the Church for the foundation of faith) themselves state. Everything must be weighed and judged in the light of Scripture and as the Scriptures themselves state, are completely sufficient for the task of doing that very thing.
2004-06-02 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]If that institution begins to err in doctrinal matters, without the Scriptures how would we know? Therefore the Scriptures, while first canonized by the early Church, are the Word of God and the first source of knowledge of God. It seems odd to trust the judgment of "Fathers" or "Tradition" irregardless of what the Holy Scriptures (divinely inspired Word of God given to the Church for the foundation of faith) themselves state. Everything must be weighed and judged in the light of Scripture and as the Scriptures themselves state, are completely sufficient for the task of doing that very thing.[/QUOTE]
The Church is guided constantly by the Holy Spirit. Does that mean men can't temporarily influence it into error? Yes, look at the Arian heresy. But the point is the Church is self-correcting under the Holy Spirit and the heresies are eventually rejected.
If the Scriptures are sufficient, then how do you get thousands of Protestant denominations, sects, and cults? Each and every one will claim they have the truth, but obviously that can't be true. And unlike the Church, these never self-correct, but continuously spawn new splinter sects.
2004-06-02 21:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]But the point is the Church is self-correcting under the Holy Spirit and the heresies are eventually rejected.
Did Rome truly reject the Pelagian heresy? Some of us don't think so and in that they are not alone as the same pelagianism has crept into many of the evangelical Protestant churches, as well. Are the Orthodox churches of one mind on the content of Tradition and sources of Revelation or what teachings are apostolic versus merely ecclesiastical? Where do we go to resolve these matters? The Holy Scriptures, the Word of God.
If the Scriptures are sufficient, then how do you get thousands of Protestant denominations, sects, and cults? Each and every one will claim they have the truth, but obviously that can't be true. And unlike the Church, these never self-correct, but continuously spawn new splinter sects.[/QUOTE]
Coming from the Orthodox church, I think your charge of Protestant disunity rings a bit hollow (see above), but in essential doctrine I think there has been and continues to be a good deal of unity with charity extended in non-essentials. Reformation and revival as required as the Holy Spirit leads, guides and directs.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
2004-06-03 01:05 | User Profile
When you trust the Scriptures, you are putting your trust into (1) the mortal men who wrote them, and (2) into the other mortal men who later decided which writings were to considered "inspired" and which were to be discarded. Hence, to trust in the Bible is to trust in other men, not God. There is simply no escape from this pitiless fact.
Personally, I would have a lot more confidence in the Scriptures if they didn't present willful gullibility as the main prerequisite for salvation. It would also help if the Scriptures weren't self-contradictory (e.g., in some verses Christ presents belief in him as the only thing necessary for salvation, yet the Gospels also show Christ foretelling how he'll judge people by their works -- whether they gave food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, etc.). The Bible is also confused about how Judas died (did he hang himself or trip and burst open?) and many other things.
If God wanted to send people a message, then He, being perfect by hypothesis, would have done so in a perfect and unmistakably divine manner. He would have sent His message in such a way that no honest person could doubt it. For a message to be perfect, it must be perfectly clear to its recipient so that it can accomplish its purpose perfectly. But the Bible is not perfectly clear -- Christians of good faith have disagreed about it practically since Emperor Constantine ordered its compilation in order to unite the Roman Empire. What does that tell us?
Either God wants people to believe in Him, or He doesn't. If He wants people to believe in Him (as if honest belief/disbelief had anything to do with morality whatsoever) then He could have made it very easy. For example, he could have arranged for each and every Bible every printed to be physically indestructible. Or He could have simply sent a personal message to every single person who ever lived, telling each person His will (much like He supposedly did with Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, Abraham, etc., etc.). But He didn't. So all we have to go on is the word of other mortal men who claimed to speak for God. Such men have existed from time immemorial, and I don't trust any of them.
The Gospel writers wrote that Jesus would return "soon." Is 2000 years "soon"? From a human perspective? It doesn't matter if God sees 2000 years as the blink of an eye -- when you communicate with someone, your purpose is to make them understand your message clearly, not to speak to yourself in doubletalk so that you confuse the recipient of your message ("Sure, I said 'soon', but I really meant 'soon from MY point of view.' ").
I doubt very much that hell exists, but even if I do go there, it will be for one "crime": unyielding honesty and the utter refusal to deceive myself by telling myself I believe something for which there is zero evidence. And if belief and unbelief are preordained by God, then I'm only doing His will anyway, so it makes no sense for Him to condemn me for it.
2004-06-03 12:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]When you trust the Scriptures, you are putting your trust into (1) the mortal men who wrote them, and (2) into the other mortal men who later decided which writings were to considered "inspired" and which were to be discarded. Hence, to trust in the Bible is to trust in other men, not God. There is simply no escape from this pitiless fact.
No one denies this. Christians merely hold that these mortal men were inspired when they did the writing, and that others were inspired when they did they choosing.
[QUOTE=Angler] Personally, I would have a lot more confidence in the Scriptures if they didn't present willful gullibility as the main prerequisite for salvation.
I'm not sure I know what you mean.
[QUOTE=Angler] It would also help if the Scriptures weren't self-contradictory (e.g., in some verses Christ presents belief in him as the only thing necessary for salvation, yet the Gospels also show Christ foretelling how he'll judge people by their works -- whether they gave food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, etc.).
The traditional view of the Catholic and Orthodox churches accounts for the faith/works dichotomy quite satisfactoriliy, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Angler]The Bible is also confused about how Judas died (did he hang himself or trip and burst open?) and many other things.
Two points -- First, small differences in the descriptions of events are considered excellent proof of independent authorship. If all of the Gospels matched each other in every little particular, then that would indicate that the authors had gotten together to "get their stories straight." Ask a policeman how likely it is to get 4 identical eyewitness accounts of an incident that happened 20 minutes ago. Second, as far as Judas is concerned, perhaps he hanged himself, and then the rope broke (or he was cut down), he fell to the earth, and his stomach burst. Seems reasonable to me.
[QUOTE=Angler]If God wanted to send people a message, then He, being perfect by hypothesis, would have done so in a perfect and unmistakably divine manner. He would have sent His message in such a way that no honest person could doubt it.
Yes, He could have, but why exactly do you feel qualified to dictate how God should have done anything?
[QUOTE=Angler]Either God wants people to believe in Him, or He doesn't. If He wants people to believe in Him (as if honest belief/disbelief had anything to do with morality whatsoever) then He could have made it very easy. [/QUOTE] Actually, Angler, that is how he made it -- easy. Adam was able to walk and talk with God, and he had no doubt whatsoever about His existence. It was humanity that turned away from God, creating the chasm which now separates us. You can see the Alps when you are in Switzerland, but it would be silly to take a plane to Florida, and then declare the Alps don't exist, because you cannot see them.
2004-08-13 12:27 | User Profile
Tex, Okie, others interested:
I'm finishing a book that goes into this subject in some detail called [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385501684/qid=1092399617/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-0921348-3805445?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]Hail Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God.[/URL] It's written by Scott Hahn, who began his career as a Evangelical Bible scholar before converting to Catholicism and taking up a teaching career at Franciscan University.
Hahn supports Catholic doctrine using Scripture, Scripture, Scripture.
In short, I think he speaks your Reformed language much better than I, and while even I have some problems with a couple of his arguments, I think you'll find his arguments well made and thorougly grounded in the Good Book.
Hahn's book is well worth a careful look, IMHO. I highly recommend it.
Walter