Apologetics - Perpetual Virginity of Mary

One of the reasons, there aren't daily updates to the CAS blog is that I devote considerable time responding to apologetic errors on other blogs. This morning, I discovered a well meaning Christian, who obviously spends much time dwelling in and on the Word, posting against the Christian doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Yes, I said Christian. The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a universal Christian doctrine dating back to the earliest days of the Church. It is not uniquely Roman Catholic.

Our earnest brother (or sister) in Christ says "...we gather that Jesus had at least four brothers and some sisters from Mary, his mother! Mary was not a perpetual virgin." Our brother bases his arguement on Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3.

”Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”
Matthew 13:55

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?”
Mark 6:3

Of these passages, our brother says; "The context alone provides plain evidence that Christ had actual blood brothers and sisters. The Catholic Church, however, denies the context." Does the Catholic Church deny that context? Absolutely! Not just the Catholic Church at Rome, but all the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

Does any other Christian Church deny the context? Why yes, thank you for asking. All of the Orthodox Churches also deny the context and hold the Christian doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Did any of the Reformers deny the context and hold the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Yes, all of them did.

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary: "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.(Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity: "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}

Ulrich Zwingli wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity: "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, v. 1, p. 424.)

John Wesley wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity: "The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." (Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic, 1749)

Why do most of the world's Christians still continue to hold and teach the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Because denial of the doctrine pulls the rug out from beneath the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Islamic apologists, atheists, and cultists see the denial of Mary's perpetual virginity as the gateway to disproving the divinity of Christ. They argue, if Mary had seven children and these six are human, then the seventh is human as well. Therefore, Christianity is a sham as it is built on a lie. God is one and there is no Trinity. Allah Ahkbar!

The denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary was a heresy made popular by Helvidius during the early Christian Church. My favorite reply to Helvidius was made by the one man who surely knew the true context of Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Jerome. Yes, the very same Jerome who translated the Bible from Greek and knew the meaning of adelphos. Jerome's Against Helvidius is the classic apologetic for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Its a shame that more Christians have not read it. Our brother doesn't even mention Jerome in his apologetic for the heresy.

However, Jerome was not alone and apologies were written by: Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); and Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444).

So how do we as modern day Christians follow Jerome, the early Church fathers, and the Reformers in responding to those mis-informed brothers and sisters (adelphos) that have rediscovered the error of Helvidius and now embrace a dangerous heresy? Bible believing Christians, knowing the inerrency of scripture, should respond with charity and kindness by focusing on these main points:

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary. Only Jesus is said to be the son of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Our brother in Christ stated "In the Greek text, the word “brother” is adelphos, which literally means “from the womb,” indicating these are Christ’s brothers from His mother." But how is adelphos actually used in scripture?

In the Bible, the word adelphos is used for:
(1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2);
(2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23);
(3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19);
(4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17);
(5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29);
(6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47);
(7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9);
(8) mankind (Mt 25:40);
(9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and
(10) believers (Mt 23:8).
(From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

Third, a strong proof text against the Helvidian Heresy is John 19:26-27.

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
John 19:26-27

Jesus, the perfect Jewish son and fulfiller of the Law of Moses, would not have violated Jewish law by giving his mother over to the care of John if Mary had any other children. Our brother may have overlooked John 19:26-27 or not connected the passage with Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 since they are all in different books.

Many modern Christians in their zeal to disprove Catholicism are embracing dangerous heresies that our early Church fathers fought hard to extinguish. Christians must be careful to learn the history of Christianity and what doctrines have always been held by Christians. There are numerous collections of non-canonical writings by the earliest Christians available to us. I often use the Christian Classics Ethereal library collection. If you have not discovered this treasure of ante-Nicene Bible commentaries and "Sunday school" lessons, I encourage you to visit and read.

Source: Was Mary A Perpetual Virgin?

Saint Patrick a Baptist! Not!

One bit of fiction that makes it way across the Internet this time of year is "St. Patrick A Baptist!" by Dr. L. K. Landis. Dr. Landis, for whatever reason, wants to convert Saint Patrick from Catholic to Baptist post-mortem. Several Baptist church sites and bloggers have discovered Dr. Landis' fictional account of Saint Patrick and have posted it to their sites without any concern for historical accuracy. How any true Baptist could believe that Saint Patrick was a Baptist is almost beyond explanation. I suspect the believers are Landmark Baptists, who still believe the long discredited Trail of Blood is an accurate account of Baptist history.

So, on behalf of all the Catholics and Baptists who know the truth regarding Saint Patrick, I offer this meager apologetic against Saint Patrick being a Baptist.

"Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers - ... in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant"

All of Patrick's writings consist of just two surviving documents. Not only do they not record baptising infants, they also do not record baptising only professed believers. They do record baptised individuals being confirmed and annointed with chrism, both clearly Baptist distinctives, are they not?

"Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only - This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today."

First, nothing in either of the two surviving works by Patrick mentions baptism by immersion. Second, Catholics have also baptised by immersion since the days of the apostles. Read the Didache or Cyril of Jerusalem. Catholics are filling the immersion pool at the Catholic Church I attend for the adult believer baptisms at the Easter Vigil Mass. Perhaps they too are Baptists?

"Number Three: In Church Government, St. Patrick Was A Baptist - Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops,"

These would be Baptist bishops?

"Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc. - Patrick never attended one council..."

Only one church council was held during Patrick's lifetime and it was at Chalcedon. Perhaps British Rail was on strike and prevented Patrick's attendance?

"Number Five: In Doctrine - In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system."

In all two of his writings this is largely correct, except for Patrick's mention of Catholic distinctives like confirmation, chrism, monks and nuns, purgatory, etc.

"Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord's Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist - From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance."

No, we don't, as this subject is not discussed in either surviving document. We do know from his Confession that Patrick had an altar and that communion tables are not mentioned.

"Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation - Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ's body and Christ's blood."

That's also false as neither the Eucharist nor transubstantiation are discussed in either of Patrick's two surviving documents. Also the elements of the Eucharist being only "pictures" is an unbiblical belief per Isaiah 55:11 and Genesis 1:3. That said, I will heartedly agree with any and all Baptists who wish to claim that their communion is a picture or symbol.

"Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities - St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches."

The Baptist sect didn't exist until around 1600. There were no Baptist churches in existence during Patrick's lifetime. No credible Baptist historian makes that claim. I recommend Baptist Successionism by James Edward McGoldrick. McGoldrick, a professor of history at Cedarville College, was swept up by "Trail of Blood" as an undergraduate but in his later investigations into Baptist history discovered them to be historically untenable.

"It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced.

I'm sure Dr. Landis was firmly convicted, but the author's evidence is not sufficient and does not bear up to scrutiny. Baptists have many things in their short history to be proud of, but Patrick of Ireland is not one of them.

I would encourage everyone to read Patricks surviving writings for themselves:

Confession

The Letter to Corotocus

Source: St. Patrick A Baptist!