Calvin on Mary

[2Timothy2]

Do calvinists today hold to Calvin's view of Mary's perpetual virginity?

 

[Beoga]

i don't...but then again i never knew calvin had a view of Mary's perpetual virginity

 

[cygnusx1]

I very much doubt if you will find any Evangelical (Calvinist or otherwise ) with that dogma .

 

[Elderone]

Do calvinists today hold to Calvin's view of Mary's perpetual virginity?

This Calvinist does not anymore than I believe she is the mother of God. Both of these beliefs are promoted by the Church of Rome for the enhancement of its importance. If in only one of the following passages the word brother means having the same father and mother, Joseph & Mary, the premiss is false.

Matthew 12:46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him

Luke 8:19 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd.

Mark 3:31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.

Mark 3:32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You."

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Matthew 13:56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Galations 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

Where might I find Calvins writing stating his belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

 

[2Timothy2]

These do not so much say he believed she was a virgin her whole life, but it is very similar to the roman catholic denomination's arguments on this whole subject.

John Calvin:

"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph 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 first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)


Now, I don't know this Pringle person, so take this for what it's worth:

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) }


​

 

[AndOne]

2Timothy - could you provide a link to your commentary from Calvin?

My question is what difference does it make? Who cares if she had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born or not. They were husband and wife - so what's the big deal? Who cares if he had earthly brothers or not?

I looked up the supposed commentary by Calvin that the OP presented and found nothing of the sort. I did find this:

"With extraordinary ignorance have the Papists, by an enchanter's trick, changed this salutation into a prayer, and have carried their folly so far, that their preachers are not permitted, in the pulpit, to implore the grace of the Spirit, except through their Hail, Mary.1But not only are these words a simple congratulation. They unwarrantably assume an office which does not belong to them, and which God committed to none but an angel. Their silly ambition leads them into a second blunder, for they salute a person who is absent." - taken from Calvins Commentary on Luke 1:26-33 and here is the link: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol31/htm/ix.vi.htm#ix.vi.p23.3

 

[frumanchu]

These do not so much say he believed she was a virgin her whole life, but it is very similar to the roman catholic denomination's arguments on this whole subject.







John Calvin:

"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph 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 first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)





Now, I don't know this Pringle person, so take this for what it's worth:

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) }





​

2Ti2, the quotes you have provided thusfar do not show Calvin saying anything about Mary's perpetual virginity. They are merely saying that Scripture doesn't speak specifically or loudly to whether or not Mary had sexual relations and/or children after the birth of Christ, and that the primacy and importance behind the reference to Christ as "first born" is more about His precedence.

Calvin generally takes the stance (rightly so) that if Scripture is silent on something so too should we be. Scripture is for the most part silent on the issue of whether or not Jesus had any siblings. Believing this to be true does not therefore automatically me one must adopt Mary's perpetual virginity as such would be an argument from silence.

IMO, I do believe that Protestants as a whole have gone too far in distancing themselves from the Mary of the Bible, no doubt as a result of the denial of the Roman Catholic doctrines concerning her. There is much we can and should learn from her in Scripture that can be gained without viewing her as perpetually virgin, co-redemptrix, etc.

 

[2Timothy2]

2Timothy - could you provide a link to your commentary from Calvin?

I've been away for a few days, sorry. I also seem to have neglected to bookmark those sites. I will do my best to try to find them for you. As for what difference it makes, I'm not sure I can get into that now, but I was just curious as to what calvinists' opinions were.

Frumanchu, I believe I stated that he didn't outright say she was a perpetual virgin, just that his arguments are the exact same arguments the roman catholic denomination uses to support that position. Given his background and the culture of that day...I don't know. 'tis part of why I asked.

 

[St.Augustine]

Do calvinists today hold to Calvin's view of Mary's perpetual virginity?

Yes I do

 

[St.Augustine]

This Calvinist does not anymore than I believe she is the mother of God.

Of course she is the mother of God, she was the mother of Jesus who is God. Yes the Catholics go a little to the extreme but that does not make the truth on which it is founded a lie!

 

[Elderone]

Of course she is the mother of God, she was the mother of Jesus who is God. Yes the Catholics go a little to the extreme but that does not make the truth on which it is founded a lie!

Mary a finite, sinful, person could not give birth to an Infinite, Holy being. She was the mother of Jesus the Man.


Question 4 of the Shorter Catechism asks and answers:

Question: What is God?

Answer: God is a Spirit,a infinite,B eternal,C and unchangeable,D in his being,E wisdom,f power,G holiness,h justice, goodness, and truth.

a. John 4:24., b. Job 11:7–9., c. Ps. 90:2. d. James 1:17., e. Exod 3:14., f. Ps. 147:5., g. Rev. 4:8., h. Rev. 15:4., i. Exod. 34:6–7.

Infinite - Continuing without interruption; perpetual.

Eternal - Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.



Question 22 of the Shorter Catechism ask and answers:

Question: How Did Christ, Being the Son of God, Become Man?

Answer: Christ, the Son of God, Became Man, by Taking to Himself a True Body,a and a reasonable soul,B being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,C yet without sin.D

a. Heb. 2:14, 16; 10:5., b. Matt. 26:38., c. Luke 1:27, 31, 35, 42; Gal. 4:4., d. Heb. 4:15; 7:26.

The Son (God) was made flesh, took on a human body (man) and was the God-man, fully God and fully man. God the Son was, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, from all time.

Mary gave Him, God, a human body in all aspects except without sin, for His work on earth.


In the New Testament Mary is referred to as the "mother of Jesus"

John 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

The Council of Ephesus in 431 came up with that term, Mother of God, to "emphasize the deity of Christ", and other worldly reasons, but the title was not necessary as Luke 1:30-35 states:,

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mary was a special woman, but a sinful mortal as all the rest of us.

Ro 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

 

[Jon_]

<snip>

The elder said it well. Mary was simply a vessel by which Jesus was imparted a body of flesh that he might fulfill the work of the Father. Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father ("In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God").

I do concur that Mary's viriginity is immaterial, though. Calvin's comment that where Scripture is silent we should likewise be silent is very wise. Let us not impart anything to Mary that God does not.

 

[Lockheed]

Mary a finite, sinful, person could not give birth to an Infinite, Holy being. She was the mother of Jesus the Man.

Whoa... Jesus's nature, 100% God 100% man cannot be divided in this manner. Surely Mary was not the origination for that which is the deity of Christ, yet at the same time, the person in her womb was never NOT 100% God.

 

[Elderone]

Whoa... Jesus's nature, 100% God 100% man cannot be divided in this manner. Surely Mary was not the origination for that which is the deity of Christ, yet at the same time, the person in her womb was never NOT 100% God.

What is the inference?

 

[cygnusx1]

Sex within marriage is a gift of God , so I never did get the point about trying to keep Mary a Virgin after Jesus Christ The Lord and Saviour was born , it just seems to have some underlying implication about celibacy , which it wasn't anyway.

Are we who are married anymore "impure" than those who are not ?

Mary was married........... and Peter.

The scriptural reference to staying single for The work of The Lord are based upon PRACTICAL considerations , not sexual activity.

 

[rnmomof7]

I think that the thing I focus on as a Calvinist is it just does not matter..

Mary, has no part of my salvation .
If she sinned or did not sin has no part of my salvation.
If she has a dozen natural children as a submissive wife to her husbands just does not matter.

My hope is built on nothing less that Jesus Christ MY righteousness.

The problem with the focus on Mary is it forces us to take our eyes off the one that does save

Thank You Jesus !

 

[Elderone]

I think that the thing I focus on as a Calvinist is it just does not matter..

Mary, has no part of my salvation .
If she sinned or did not sin has no part of my salvation.
If she has a dozen natural children as a submissive wife to her husbands just does not matter.

My hope is built on nothing less that Jesus Christ MY righteousness.

The problem with the focus on Mary is it forces us to take our eyes off the one that does save

Thank You Jesus !

Absolutely!!!!

It makes you wonder why the Church of Rome put together this whole "Maryology" side show.

 

[ClementofRome]

Absolutely!!!!

It makes you wonder why the Church of Rome put together this whole "Maryology" side show.

I will be throwing my crowns (if in fact I get any) at the feet of Jesus, and not Mary. I might get around to thanking Mary for her faithfulness in bearing my Savior, but that is it.

I just think that "your mother and brothers" is just too obvious. Why not say, "your mother and friends" or "your mother and cousins"? Both context and logic win the day with this for me.

And....yes, it matters not one way or another.

 

[Jon_]

(Mat. 12:48-50 KJV) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

​

 

[rnmomof7]

(Mat. 12:48-50 KJV) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

​

That makes US his family .

reading that scripture we see his mother and brothers trying to take him away from His ministry ..... obviously not his will