Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Sonya: I also think the perpetual virginity argument is weak at best because if the Bible said she remained a virgin till her death, I am pretty sure we wouldn’t be having a discussion about it.

Bread From Heaven: But, neither would we be having this discussion if Jesus or any of the writers of the NT said that all Christian truth must be found ONLY in the Scriptures. And I know that if Scripture did say Mary was ever virgin and immaculate Protestants would believe it. But why do you believe in Sola Scriptura, since it is NOT taught in scripture?

So you think that Mary’s perpetual virginity is weak b/c it is not found in scripture. OK, that is your choice.

Did you know that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli firmly believed in her perpetual virginity? So, by whose authority was it rejected among Protestants?

Martin Luther: “It is an article of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, V. 11, pp319-320; V. 6, p 510)

John Calvin: “there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Mt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp., V6,1 P. 639

But, what surprises me, unless you haven’t read it, is that the refutation of the Protestant contention, that Jesus MUST have had brothers and sisters would be irrelevant to you. –>Who Were the Brothers & Sisters of Jesus?

Protestants reject the Perpetual Virginity of Mary b/c they know the scriptures speak several times about the brothers and sisters of Jesus. So, if it is scripturally possible that these passages refer to Jesus’ kinsmen or step siblings as opposed to Mary’s offspring, then there is no absolute scriptural refutation of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. This was amazing and convincing to me twelve years ago when I first looked into Catholicism.

About these ads

23 Responses to Perpetual Virginity of Mary

  1. SR says:

    This is good post and if you will allow me to shed a little more light on the subject. Mary was raised in the Temple until she began her menstrual cycle, then the girls had to leave the Temple. When girls were raised in the Temple, they took a “vow” of virginity. Dare we think that the woman God chose to have is Son would lie??? Especially to God???

    On Brothers/Sisters: Where were they at the foot of the Cross? If Jesus would have had other siblings according to the custom of Israel Mary would have went to the next surviving son. We see she was given to John who was no blood relations to Christ at all. Jesus was Jewish and followed all customs and beliefs. This would have been a horrible thing to do, to give her to John.

    Also we see when Jesus rose He told Mary Magdalene to go and tell “his brothers” what she had seen. The funny thing is, she went to the disciples and these were not His “blood brothers.”

    Also in Acts I think 1:15 We see Peter with the brothers. There were one hundred and twenty of them. Now we know Peter did not have 120 brothers and what was meant by this was: The body of believers.

    In the Greek there was no word for friend, cousin, step-brothers/sisters etc… The word “brother” was used for everyone. Never in all of my research on Mary has it ever been recorded that she had another child. No where in history or in the Bible. This teaching that she did is something people are drawing out of their own hats and have no Biblical basis for it whatsoever. Nowhere can it be proven in Scripture for those who are Sola Scriptura that she ever had another child. Especially when one understands what the word “brother” truly stood for. Good post. God Bless, SR

  2. Your Intrepid Blogger says:

    Did you mean to say that sola scriptura is NOT taught in scripture? Because it isn’t.

  3. SR says:

    Hi Intrepid,

    What I meant by that is. If one is following Scripture alone, and cannot find in there where Mary ever had another child then they are not practicing what they preach nor following their own beliefs and doctrines. For those who are Sola Scriptura their belief is if it is not in the Bible then it does exist. Mary is not shown in the Bible as ever having another child, so this belief of “siblings” cannot exist according to how they believe.

    No I am Catholic and I do not believe in Sola Scriptura. You are correct this was never taught and the Church came first and not the Bible, so what did those who had no Bible do? They taught by word of mouth Scripture and Traditions. Everyone practiced these things until the Reformation which has split the children of God into all different directions. Thanks. God Bless, SR

  4. Constantine says:

    SR is wrong when s/he states, “For those who are Sola Scriptura their belief is if it is not in the Bible then it does exist.” That simply is not true. Every major Protestant denomination affirms Sola Scriptura but also affirms their creeds and confessions. Or, if Lutheran, the Book of Concord, etc. So SR has fallen for the errant Catholic line that confuses “sola” with “solo”.

    S/he further opines, “Mary is not shown in the Bible as ever having another child, so this belief of “siblings” cannot exist according to how they believe.”

    Well, that’s not true either. John 2:12 says, “After this he (Jesus) went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.” So Mary is definitely shown as having several other children. What’s really sinister in this context is that the Roman Catholic Church has purposefully excised this passage of Scripture from its Lectionary because it has been deemed “theologically difficult”.

    But here is the REAL irony of SR’s position. It is currently, a tenet of Canon Law that refusal to have more children is ground for an annulment. So if SR is correct then, according to Canon Law, Mary and Joseph are an example of a defective marriage which could lawfully be annulled!!! Now that’s something to think about dear Catholics.

    Jesus, according to the Roman Catholic church, could have been an illegitimate child!

    Ergo, Mary definitely had more children.

    Peace.

  5. SR says:

    SR has confused nothing with nothing. I was a Protestant for 48 years and I know what Sola Scriptura means to a Protestant.

    In John 2:12 where does it say these children were Mary’s children. I will ask the question again: “Where were they at the foot of the Cross?” Why was Mary given to John instead of one of her Son’s? “Now that is something to think about “dear Protestant?”

    Joseph and Mary’s marriage would of never been annulled for any reason. These two were chosen by God Himself to raise His Son. We do not know if or when St. Joseph died, or truly what happened to him, do we?

    God Bless, SR

  6. SR says:

    Constantine,

    I had to come back and re-read what you said, as I did not catch the line about Jesus being illegitimate according to the Church. If you want to respond to me go right ahead. This is Bread from Heavens blog not mine.

    I have better things to do with my time then sit and argue with someone who would make a comment like that. Comments like that do not even deserve my time or effort.

    That is just scraping the bottom of the barrel. I do not waste my time on things such as this. God Bless, SR

  7. bfhu says:

    Constantine,
    What are you talking about????

  8. H.Davis says:

    It says “…and he or Joseph knew [had sex] her not UNTIL she brought forth her FIRST born son.” In Greek it implies that Joseph had relations with Mary after the birth of their son,but not before implying it was truly a virgin birth that he had nothing to do with as a male.

  9. bfhu says:

    Dear H. Davis,

    The Greek does not imply anything different than English. It can mean “something did not happen until” and then it did happen, such as Joseph with Mary. So it can legitimately be interpreted in a Protestant way but it is not mandatory. As even yourself noted it is an implication, not an assertion. And besides, there are scriptural examples where this is obviously NOT implied.
    Your interpretation of the UNTIL in:

    ‘And knew her not until she had brought forth her son and He called His name Jesus.’

    to mean that Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus was born; would then mean we HAVE to interpret the following verses like this:

    As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child until the day of her death.2 Samuel 6:23

    Interpretation: Using your hermenutic this would have to mean that Michal DID HAVE A CHILD AFTER HER DEATH.

    In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away. Psalm 71:7

    Interpretation: At the end of the world, the moon will be taken away and righteousness and peace will no longer shine forth.

    For He must reign, until He has put all enemies under his feet. I Corinthians 15:25

    Interpretation: Once Christ has defeated His enemies, He will no longer reign supreme.

    Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world. Matthew 28:20

    Interpretation: God is with us always, but at the end of the world He will no longer be with us.

    I am sure you would agree that the Catholic way of interpreting until would be more appropriate in all of the above verses. And based on historical evidence the Catholic interpretation of until in Matthew 1:25 is also more appropriate.

    Even if you accept Sola Scriptura, there isn’t a single passage of Holy Scripture that would cause one to reject the ever-virginity of the Theotokos (GOD Bearer). Every Scripture quoted by those who reject this teaching can be logically addressed interpreting Holy Scripture within the situational context and Middle Eastern culture in which the Bible was written. It all boils down to interpretation, because, contrary to Protestant claims, a plain reading of Scripture is not going to conclusively resolve the questions. Therefore, you have to rely on a tradition…Protestant or Catholic. And even Protestant tradition of the Reformers believed in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. So by whose authority was this fact rejected?

    This is such an important issue . It is about much more than just preserving Mary’s virtue or making false attempts to exalt her. It is about the very nature of who Christ was and what is truly meant by the Incarnation. Mary had a child from God the Holy Spirit. She conceived from the Holy Spirit. God literally dwelt within her body. If you think it through, it becomes highly unfitting to accept that Mary would have allowed herself to be touched, or that Joseph, a righteous and pious man, would have presumed to enter into the former sacred dwelling place of God in Mary’s womb, after she conceived a child from God and literally gave birth to God.

    Excerpted from Mary Was Only a Virgin UNTIL Jesus was Born.

    • H.Davis says:

      Have to jump back and forth as I am at my office.

      In Luke 1:80 until or the Greek word heos is used alone.

      In Matt.1:25 until is ‘hou heos’ or ‘hou houtou’ means that no activity took place until after the birth.It is the Greek construction that is important to the main clause in v.25.

      I do firmly believe in the fact that the Word who was God (Jn.1:1;18) or Jesus was ‘made flesh and dwelt among us’ or that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit but that’s it. No where does the Spirit’s activty show anything else except conception.
      This means the Son the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was ‘taken’ by the agency of the Third Person or the Holy Spirit was implanted as a Holy Embyro(He became a human being) in Mary’s womb.To become human or flesh this had to be.Mary had nothing to do with this part just ‘house and feed’ the implanted ‘Holy Thing’ as Luke calls Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke agree it was ALL of the Holy Spirit.
      A mystery or that ‘God was manifested in the flesh.’ Paul
      A real miracle!!!
      Hebrews says ‘marriage is honorable for ALL and the bed undeflied but whore mongers will be judged.’There is nothing evil about sexual union between anyone including Mary and Joseph.
      After giving birth her work as it related to ‘holding-nursing’ the sacred Child for 9 months was done.Then she and Joseph raised and taught the Child,of course.

      • bfhu says:

        I agree but the ancients held virginity and abstention for sex in high regard. Marriage and the marital embrace is a good. But lifelong virginity is better.

  10. H.Davis says:

    I fully understand the contraversy and appreciate your feedback and your excellent well thought out views.
    The men you quote or refer to all or most came out of the Catholic church and we know from history they brought out some of the Mother churche’s teachings with them.
    Jesus clearly had brothers and sisters.Mark 6:3;Matt.13:55 “Is this not the son of the carpenter? Is his mother not called Mary and his brothers James,and Joses and Simon and Judas?
    And his sisters,are they not all with us? All Matthew had to say these were the children of Joseph, but he didn’t.
    John :2:12 ; 7:3 “So His(!) brothers said to Him,move away from here and go to Judea so that your disciples may also see your works which you do…For neither did his brothers believe in Him.”They were not his brothers ‘in faith’ as they did not believe in Him and referred to His Followers as ‘his disciples.’
    Matt.12:46-50 “While He was still speaking to the people -Lo,His mother and brothers were standing outside wanting to speak to Him!
    Then someone said to Him ,Lo,Your(!) mother and brothers are standing outside wanting to speak to you.
    But He answered and said to the one who spoke to Him ,who is my mother”And who are my brothers?
    And stretching out his hand toward his disciples He said, Look,my mother and my brothers.
    For whoever shall do the will of my father Who is in heaven,he is my brother and sister and mother.”CF John 2:1-5.
    A perfect chance to extol Mary in a unique way. I think this speaks for itself.Contemplate what the Master was saying.
    If these sons and daugthers were from Joseph why did he leave them when he and Mary went to Bethlehem? ALL had to be registered.
    The clear answer is that these were from Mary and Joseph. All else is creating one’s own teaching or scenario.It is all speculation if one wishes to go beyond these simple straightforward scriptrual declarations. All were ‘equal’ in the spiritual kingdom.No was special in any way only Christ.
    Jesus or the Biblical writers could easily have set us straight on who was who but didn’t.Because it so clear there was no need.
    Thank you.

    • bfhu says:

      I fully understand the contraversy and appreciate your feedback and your excellent well thought out views.
      The men you quote or refer to all or most came out of the Catholic church and we know from history they brought out some of the Mother churche’s teachings with them.

      Bread From Heaven: How, then, did you decide which beliefs they brought with them were TRUE and which were in Catholic error? By Protestant tradition?

      HDavis Jesus clearly had brothers and sisters.Mark 6:3;Matt.13:55 “Is this not the son of the carpenter? Is his mother not called Mary and his brothers James,and Joses and Simon and Judas?
      And his sisters,are they not all with us? All Matthew had to say these were the children of Joseph, but he didn’t.
      John :2:12 ; 7:3 “So His(!) brothers said to Him,move away from here and go to Judea so that your disciples may also see your works which you do…For neither did his brothers believe in Him.”They were not his brothers ‘in faith’ as they did not believe in Him and referred to His Followers as ‘his disciples.’
      Matt.12:46-50 “While He was still speaking to the people -Lo,His mother and brothers were standing outside wanting to speak to Him!
      Then someone said to Him ,Lo,Your(!) mother and brothers are standing outside wanting to speak to you.
      But He answered and said to the one who spoke to Him ,who is my mother”And who are my brothers?
      And stretching out his hand toward his disciples He said, Look,my mother and my brothers.
      For whoever shall do the will of my father Who is in heaven,he is my brother and sister and mother.”CF John 2:1-5.

      Bread From Heaven: I am familiar with all of these verses. And your interpretation is not illegitimate. However, it is not clearly the ONLY way to interpret these verses. Please see my post. –>Who Were the Brothers & Sisters of Jesus?

      HDavisA perfect chance to extol Mary in a unique way. I think this speaks for itself.Contemplate what the Master was saying.
      If these sons and daugthers were from Joseph why did he leave them when he and Mary went to Bethlehem? ALL had to be registered.

      Bread From Heaven: They may have been fully grown. The gospel writers were not into extolling “Mary in a unique way”. All exolling of Mary is meant to give glory to her son.

  11. H.Davis says:

    I found in Psalm 69 which parts of are considered messianic. For example where it speaks of the messiah’s “zeal” for the house of God which was fulfilled according to the NT when Jesus cleansed the temple.
    We read in verse 8, “I am become a stranger to my brothers,and as an alien to my mother’s children.”
    This seems to indicate even his “mother’s children” or in light of what the NT Gospels say his brothers (and sisters) deserted him which is what happened.
    But by the time the 120 are praying though sometime after His resserection for the Spirit that was promised (Acts 1:4) to them we see,’Mary and the women were all praying and they were with “His brothers.”

    So not only would his Jewish ‘brethern’ desert Him, but even his mother’s children or by implication his own brothers and sisters as per Matt,MK,Jn.,etc.
    I believe this says the messiah would have brothers (and sisters)and even a greater detail reveals it was just his mother living at the time, ‘my mother’s children’ as Joseph was dead by that time. He did not say his father’s children just his mother’s children which was true.
    But,it is saying these children were his mothers or that she bore them. It does not say,once again,my father’s children,etc.

    • bfhu says:

      Dear HDavis,
      You are picking and choosing the parts of Ps. 69 that suit your purpose and ignoring those that don’t fit your theology or any other Christian’s. If you want to take a messianic Psalm and say that it all MUST have been fulfilled in its exact entirety, in order to assert that Mary had other children, then you will have a big problem on your hands. Let’s take a look at the Psalm.

      1 Save me, O God,
      For the waters have [b]threatened my life.
      2 I have sunk in deep mire, and there is no foothold;
      I have come into deep waters, and a [c]flood overflows me.

      When was Jesus in this sort of situation???

      5 O God, it is You who knows my folly,
      And my wrongs are not hidden from You.

      Apparently, according to Ps 69 Jesus was a sinner.

      27 Add iniquity to their iniquity,
      And may they not come into Your righteousness.
      28 May they be blotted out of the book of life
      And may they not be [r]recorded with the righteous.

      So, was Jesus faking it when He said, Father forgive them for they know not what they do? The only part of this Psalm that is quoted in the NT as messianic is the part about zeal for house of God even though many or most of the psalm does seem to be applicable to Jesus and his suffering and rejection. But you have no grounds, to accept and assert the necessity of the part about “mother’s sons” as meaning therefore, that Mary had other sons and wiggle out of accepting the above verses as equally binding. Since that would be ridiculous, there is certainly room to reject the the part of “mother’s sons” in addition to the above verses as being absolutely and concretely historically fulfilled by Jesus.

      • peacebyjesus says:

        PV will not be settled upon the basis of what “till” can mean, even though it normally denotes a terminus indicating an expected change, or allowing for that. Instead it is better approached on the basis of the hermeneutics as regards exceptions, in which is can be shown that the Holy Spirit makes notable exceptions evident, from extreme ages to strength to the number of toes to sinlessness.

        And as various Catholic claims for the Catholic Mary demigoddess (versus the humble and holy human of Scripture) which we reject are all exceptions to the norm, from sinlessness to celibate marriage to bodily assumption to Heaven, none of which are made manifest as other such like are, then the burden of proof is upon the Catholic to establish them by Scripture. But which they fail to do, and the manner of extrapolation that they must engage in attempting to do so is a testimony to the fact that this is a tradition of men, not found in Scripture.

        I have been going thru one of the more extreme effects here (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/MarySC.html), and which is addressed the Ps. 69 issue.

  12. bfhu says:

    Mary is not a demigoddess. She is a humble human person who made herself a servant of God.We do not need to prove her perpetual virginity or anything else about her from Scripture. Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that claims all religious truth must be found in Scripture alone or else it must be rejected. However, Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture either. Therefore, it should be rejected by all Protestants.

  13. peacebyjesus says:

    That she was a humble and holy handmaid of the Lord is the point, rather than being the almost Almighty Queen of Heaven and greatest saint and worthy of praise only second to God, and who suffered for our sins, and able to respond to countless requests, etc. etc.

    “We do not need to prove her perpetual virginity or anything else about her from Scripture.”

    An honest if damnable admission for doctrine.

    “Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that claims all religious truth must be found in Scripture alone or else it must be rejected.”

    That is true (though SS does not hold that all religious truth that can be known is in Scripture, but basically holds that Scripture alone is the assured Word of God and supreme judge), and this can be said to be true of those Roman Catholics who hold to the materially sufficiency of Scripture. But if Scripture does provide for the church and its magisterium, then it must be held as the supreme authority, and which was essentially established due to its Heavenly qualities, as true men of God are. Such should be confirmed as such by those in authority, but their authenticity is not dependance on that.

    “However, Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture either. Therefore, it should be rejected by all Protestants.”

    Not so, as it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, and materially provided for additional revelation and the means of establishing such. Only formal sufficiency, which varies in meaning, awaited a completed canon.

    And what is not true is your alternative, that of sola ecclesia, or more specially, sola Roma, with its presuppositions. And under which there is also division.

    Good discussion starter.

    • bfhu says:

      The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture. You provided no scripture to back of your assertion so that we can test it.
      The Catholic Church does believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. Nothing we believe may conflict with it. And there is nothing in Catholic Doctrine that does conflict with Scripture.

      Christianity spread throughout the world without a canonized New Testament. Jesus never instructed the apostles to write the New Testament. Jesus never wrote scripture because He established a teaching Church on Peter and the Apostles. And this Church teaches what Jesus taught the Apostles. Some of this teaching got written down and canonized in the Bible and the rest was taught to faithful men able to teach.

    • bfhu says:

      BFHU: “However, Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture either. Therefore, it should be rejected by all Protestants.”

      PBJ: Not so, as it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, and materially provided for additional revelation and the means of establishing such. Only formal sufficiency, which varies in meaning, awaited a completed canon.

      BFHU: In my statement above I did not mean that Scripture should be rejected by Protestants, but rather Sola Scriptura should be rejected since it is not found in Scripture Alone.

  14. peacebyjesus says:

    Hope the formatting works here.

    “The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture. You provided no scripture to back of your assertion so that we can test it.”

    I am glad that you believe truth claims must be established by Scripture, as if you must be held to that, though that is not the means of assurance of doctrine for a Catholic, but i am happy to abundantly substantiate that as written, Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and for testing truth claims: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial

    And let me clarify that by “religious truth” i mean doctrine, not that God cannot give a word of prophecy, wisdom or knowledge, which Scripture provides for, (1Cor. 12:8) even if some may disagree or abuse such, but that all is tested for conformity by Scripture and is subject to its supreme authority as the the assured word of God. And thus in that context Paul told the same Thessalonians to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1Ths. 5:21)

    Nor does holding to supremacy of Scripture mean that there was no oral preaching that was also the Word of God, but that it is by Scripture that we know that there was, (1Ths. 2:13) and such preaching was judged by Scripture for veracity which alone is the assured word of God.

    For we know from Scripture that Paul exhorted others to keep His oral instructions as well as written, (2Ths. 2:15) and that noble men examined his preaching by Scripture for its veracity, (Acts 17:11) and that his manner was to reason out of the Scriptures, with the supernatural attestation it also provides for affirming the truth.

    Nor was this oral truth that of nebulous eons-old traditions which results in the different interpretations such as the Roman Catholics and EOs example, but what Paul referred to was known instruction by a manifestly Divinely inspired apostle, who upheld the supremacy of the Scriptures, preaching the gospel “Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.” (Romans 1:2)

    And there is no proof that the truth of this oral instruction was not subsequently written down, as was the norm of anything referred to as “the word of the Lord/God.”

    Scripture is the portion of Tradition that is established as being Divine by its Heavenly qualities, in word and in the manifest power of God. And to which body nothing is added and all is subject to its authority.

    And thus preachers today may call their hearers to obey what they hear, that being the truths of Scripture, as established thereby, obedience being conditional upon that.

    “Nothing we believe may conflict with it. And there is nothing in Catholic Doctrine that does conflict with Scripture.”

    Of course, not, since Rome herself is the supreme judge of this, and according to her interpretation, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict, and infallibly declares that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her (scope and subject-based) formula. Thus she cannot be wrong, if she does say so herself.

    But her teachings do not depend upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but assurance of their veracity rests upon her presumed infallble authority.

    In contrast, while we interpret Scripture (and Catholics interpret their supreme authority, while under sola ecclesia churches can disagree on what Tradition teaches), we cannot be little popes, as we cannot claim assured formulaic infallibility as per Rome or which some cults effectively do, but must seek to persuade men “by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God,” (2 Corinthians 4:2) with Scripture being the standard for truth and source of doctrine.

    The Lord Himself established His claims upon Scripture, as did the apostles and church, in word and in the power of God it reveals.

    “Jesus never wrote scripture because He established a teaching Church on Peter and the Apostles. And this Church teaches what Jesus taught the Apostles.”

    Which means Rome via her perpetuated Petrine papacy according to you, but which is an assertion not an argument, while the premise behind the argument is faulty.

    Nor does being the instrument and steward of revelation make one the assured infallible teacher of it, while it took Rome over 1400 years after the last book was penned to finally provide an indisputable, infallible canon, being forced to do so, as Scripture is not its supreme transcendent authority, that being herself.

    “Some of this teaching got written down and canonized in the Bible and the rest was taught to faithful men able to teach.”

    The error is that of making amorphous oral tradition, which by nature is supremely subject to undetectable corruption, equal to the established Word of God, the Scriptures, while Rome effectively presumes supremacy over both.

    • bfhu says:

      Very interesting. But you have so far proven my point. Protestants find fault with Catholic teaching b/c they say that the Catholic Church teaches doctrine no where to be found in Scripture. They base this criticism upon a Tradition of Men-Luther started it–Sola Scriptura. And yet, this Protestant teaching is nowhere to be found in Scripture either. This is a clear case of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

      The fact is that I converted to the Catholic Church not b/c I was subject to the idea of Church and papal infallibility. I converted b/c the historical evidence backed up Catholic Claims of being the Church founded by Jesus Christ which the Gates of Hell would not overcome. Historically, all non-Catholic “churches” are relatively new. The oldest are 1000 years old. Eastern Orthodox which have all the same doctrines as the Catholic Church except papal infallibility. Then the Lutheran churches are about 500 years old. Down to the newest large “non-denomination” denomination…Calvary Chapels. The founder is still alive and they have only been around for about 40 years.

      1) Protestantism demands a belief that Jesus was not able to keep His Church from being overcome by paganism and the Gates of Hell. In order to stay a Protestant, I would have to concede that Jesus was unable to keep His Promise.

      2) If when I went back and read the writing of the first century Fathers of the Church, I had found Protestant teaching, I would still be Protestant today. But what I found was that the early Church believed and taught the same doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches today. Therefore, the first Century Church was CATHOLIC and not at all Protestant.

      3) The New Testament was canonized by this same early Church. So, if I receive the New Testament from this early church why would I trust the New Testament but not what this same Church taught?

      4) God is not a God of confusion but Protestant doctrine is nothing but confusion. Every denomination is the result of disunity personal interpretation contrary to Jesus’ desire that we all be one. And directly contrary to Scripture that says that the interpretation is not up to personal interpretation.

      2 Peter 1:20
      But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

      But, of course, this is exactly what every Protestant is exhorted to do and the result is thousands of different denominations, and a disunity that destroys the witness of the Body of Christ.

      John 17:21
      that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

      If you trust churches that sprung up a mere 500 or less, years ago as being more reliable that the Church that has been in existence since Jesus founded her and still teaches what she taught 2000 years ago, I have nothing to say. I found it totally irrational to reject the Church founded by Jesus with so many historical and miraculous proofs.

      Martin Luther, et al. had no signs and wonders validating their break away from the Church founded by Jesus. It was all ego and pride.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers

%d bloggers like this: