Do a lot of Protestants NOT believe in the Virginal Conception?

[ericcantona71]

I read in a book that a lot of Protestants don’t believe in the Virginal Conception and I was wondering whether this was true or not. And if it is true why, surely it is inconsistent with the bible??

 

[RWMorris]

I think that most evangelical and fundamentalist protestants believe in the virgin conception and birth of Jesus. Many of them do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Does this answer your question?

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born. After that, there really isn’t much teaching on it…but it is generally assumed that Mary and Joseph were man and wife in every sense and that when someone tells Jesus his mother and brothers are here…most Protestants assume that means Jesus’ biological brothers.

Protestants flat out reject that Mary was free from original sin her entire life.

I am a former Southern Baptist, recently converted to the Catholic Church. Honestly, I still kind of hold to my Protestant ideas of Mary…but I am a work in progress.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I have heard that lately some Protestants are rediscovering the Virgin Mary, and are re-evaluating their positions.

 

[thistle]

I think all protestants belive in the virgin birth.

The founders of Protestantism, Luther, Calvin and Zwingili ALL believed in the perpetual viginity of Mary. John Wesley, (founder of Methodists) also believed in the perpetual viginity of Mary.

Luther also declared Mary was free from original sin, i.e. immaculate conception.

Luther also said to honour Mary and that we should go to Jesus through her. He said she is not only the mother of Jesus but our mother too. He too gives her the title Mother of God.

Luther also believed in the Assumption of Mary.

 

[Harmony1988]

A lot of Protestants who haven’t done much research on the issue point to this verse:

Matthew 1:25 -

“When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.”

However, when reading the latin version or greek, this doesn’t have the same meaning as in english.

Here is the latin bit:

"et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium."

This ‘donec’ - english translation (until) is not the same meaning as the latin version.

‘Until’ usually implies to something that happens later. But ‘donec’ points to what happens upto that moment, not after, Joseph never did have intercourse with her upto that moment, to affirm that it was the work of God. It does NOT intend to or even state in the Latin translation (or the ancient greek for that matter) that Mary ever had intercourse. It simply affirms the fact that Joseph never had intercourse with her for her to have borne a son.

Strange enough? But remember the Bible was not originally in English and so some words don’t exist in English that exist in other languages. Until is the closes form for ‘donec’ -

This explains why Luther and many other protestant theologians from the early days knew Mary was a virgin always, because they never studied english versions, it was either latin or greek.

Cheers

 

[RWMorris]

I think all protestants believe in the virgin birth…

One would hope they all do, but when I was Episcopalian, I had a priest once tell me he didn’t believe in all that virgin birth and rising from the dead stuff. I was speechless! That was the beginning of my move to the Catholic Church.

 

[Naztakuan]

One would hope they all do, but when I was Episcopalian, I had a priest once tell me he didn’t believe in all that virgin birth and rising from the dead stuff. I was speechless! That was the beginning of my move to the Catholic Church.

If he was a priest and didn’t believe in any of that stuf then…what on earth was he actually Preaching about the miracles of Jesus?

 

[repo_man]

A lot of Protestants who haven’t done much research on the issue point to this verse:

Matthew 1:25 -

“When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.”

However, when reading the latin version or greek, this doesn’t have the same meaning as in english.

Here is the latin bit:

"et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium."

This ‘donec’ - english translation (until) is not the same meaning as the latin version.

‘Until’ usually implies to something that happens later. But ‘donec’ points to what happens upto that moment, not after, Joseph never did have intercourse with her upto that moment, to affirm that it was the work of God. It does NOT intend to or even state in the Latin translation (or the ancient greek for that matter) that Mary ever had intercourse. It simply affirms the fact that Joseph never had intercourse with her for her to have borne a son.

Strange enough? But remember the Bible was not originally in English and so some words don’t exist in English that exist in other languages. Until is the closes form for ‘donec’ -

This explains why Luther and many other protestant theologians from the early days knew Mary was a virgin always, because they never studied english versions, it was either latin or greek.

Cheers

indeed. this is also true of the greek word used. i believe it is ‘heos’.

 

[bengal_fan]

I have heard that lately some Protestants are rediscovering the Virgin Mary, and are re-evaluating their positions.

those would be SOME within the emergent (not emerging) church movement. and they don’t say that they don’t believe in the virgin birth, they would say that their belief in God and Jesus would not be shaken if the virgin birth did not actually happen.

they talk about the fact that the Jews were not waiting for their messiah to be born of a virgin because the verse in isaiah from which it is taken does not say virgin but young woman or maiden. one could argue (as many do) that a young woman and virgin could be the same thing. but the other argument is that there are many young women out there who are not virgins.

the point is: nearly all protestants (including these guys and gals who are willing to question it) believe Jesus was born of a virgin. it’s just that some are more willing than most to give up that doctrine if they had to .

 

[sarah_anne_628]

those would be SOME within the emergent (not emerging) church movement. and they don’t say that they don’t believe in the virgin birth, they would say that their belief in God and Jesus would not be shaken if the virgin birth did not actually happen.

they talk about the fact that the Jews were not waiting for their messiah to be born of a virgin because the verse in isaiah from which it is taken does not say virgin but young woman or maiden. one could argue (as many do) that a young woman and virgin could be the same thing. but the other argument is that there are many young women out there who are not virgins.

the point is: nearly all protestants (including these guys and gals who are willing to question it) believe Jesus was born of a virgin. it’s just that some are more willing than most to give up that doctrine if they had to .

I don’t know any Protestants that would give up the virginal conception and birth. I have never heard anyone but secularists argue that this could have happened any other way. Perhaps this is where Protestants and Evangelicals differ…I was formerly an evangelical and so are my circle of friends and family.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

A lot of Protestants who haven’t done much research on the issue point to this verse:

Matthew 1:25 -

“When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.”

However, when reading the latin version or greek, this doesn’t have the same meaning as in english.

Here is the latin bit:

"et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium."

This ‘donec’ - english translation (until) is not the same meaning as the latin version.

‘Until’ usually implies to something that happens later. But ‘donec’ points to what happens upto that moment, not after, Joseph never did have intercourse with her upto that moment, to affirm that it was the work of God. It does NOT intend to or even state in the Latin translation (or the ancient greek for that matter) that Mary ever had intercourse. It simply affirms the fact that Joseph never had intercourse with her for her to have borne a son.

Strange enough? But remember the Bible was not originally in English and so some words don’t exist in English that exist in other languages. Until is the closes form for ‘donec’ -

This explains why Luther and many other protestant theologians from the early days knew Mary was a virgin always, because they never studied english versions, it was either latin or greek.

Cheers

As I stated in other replies…all of the Protestants (mostly evangelicals) that I know, including clergy, believe without a doubt in the virginal conception and birth. It is not a subject up for debate.

However, where Protestants and Evangelicals differ is Mary’s ‘free from original sin’ and ‘perpetual virginity’. Most non-Catholic Christians believe that Mary and Joseph would have had normal sexual relations AFTER the birth of Jesus, and as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the Bible that would indicate one way or another in regards to Mary and Joseph’s sexual relationship (or lack of). Not even in your explanation of the root of “until”. Your explanation simply confirms that Mary was Virgin when Jesus was born.

Except of course the Scripture where Jesus’ mother and brothers was referred to. Again, this is a scripture where language and cultural considerations must be made. I believe that the Catholic assertion is that ‘brothers’ refers to kin in general…not necessarily his immediate family. But even if this is the case, it still is not confirmation that Mary was always a virgin (nor is it confirmation the other way).

I know as a Protestant and even as a new Catholic, I have trouble with Marian doctrine because it is weak on Biblical evidence. And the ole Baptist in me says, ‘if it ain’t in the Bible then it ain’t necessarily so’. End of story.

For me, it makes no difference if Mary was always a Virgin or not. It also makes no difference if she was a sinner (though definately more Holy than any other person, I would say) or not…it doesn’t take away from Jesus’ perfection. To me, it seems unbiblical to imply that anyone other than Jesus was free from sin…including his mother.

Anyway…that’s my Protestant newly turned Catholic perspective. I am not out to change any other Catholics mind on the matter, but it’s not likely my mind will change on the matter any time soon. That isn’t saying that I’ve closed my mind off to the possibility…but without compelling Biblical evidence, I cannot budge. Maybe that makes me a bad Catholic…but I am Christian first, Catholic second. My first instructor will always be the Bible as I understand through prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

sarah_anne_628:

Maybe that makes me a bad Catholic…but I am Christian first, Catholic second. My first instructor will always be the Bible as I understand through prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Your final comment is a clue as to where you may be having some difficulty. Your evangelical heritage will not fall away so easily without a little work on first principles. One of the first principles of Evangelicals is a self-sufficient private judgment. This principle is itself very unbiblical. The Holy Spirit is unable to help those who close their ears to His truths. The Catholic Church should be looked upon, in matters of biblical interpretation, as the voice of the Holy Spirit. This is in fact paramount, and a first principle with Catholics.

It’s not an easy road you have decided to follow, and few would be willing to suffer the mortifications of shedding a lifetime of presumed truths. But your reward will be truly great, and your Faith profoundly deepened if you can stay on it.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Your final comment is a clue as to where you may be having some difficulty. Your evangelical heritage will not fall away so easily without a little work on first principles. One of the first principles of Evangelicals is a self-sufficient private judgment. This principle is itself very unbiblical. The Holy Spirit is unable to help those who close their ears to His truths. The Catholic Church should be looked upon, in matters of biblical interpretation, as the voice of the Holy Spirit. This is in fact paramount, and a first principle with Catholics.

It’s not an easy road you have decided to follow, and few would be willing to suffer the mortifications of shedding a lifetime of presumed truths. But your reward will be truly great, and your Faith profoundly deepened if you can stay on it.

Well, like I said, I am not closing my mind off the possibilty of perpetual virginity and free from original sin. And I also realize that if I do eventually accept it…it will have to be on faith. There will be no hard and fast proof of this.

This may be where I will always be a bad Catholic…I do not accept the Catechism of the statements of the Vatican to be the FINAL authority…only the Bible can be that. The Bible is what is God breathed…and though inspired by the Holy Spirit, no doubt, the writings of the Catholic Church come second. But that doesn’t mean any of us can easily dismiss what the Church says…but we do need to turn to prayer and the Scriptures. Even though the Church Fathers have devoted their lives to prayer and the study of Holy Scripture and have a fairly authoritive interpretation, they are still human…even when guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus fallible.

The Bible condones ‘questioning’ church elders…the book of Acts describes the Church in Berea, where the Christians searched the Scriptures to make sure what the apostles were saying was true. Acts says this is right.

That’s why I am a huge advocate for personal Bible reading. I don’t think you can be a “good” christian or even Catholic without it (and prayer)…but we cannot rely solely on our own understanding. Because the book of Acts also describes how the Ethiopian needed someone to explain Scripture to him. So it is equally that as Christians, we participate in group Bible study where there is at least one very mature and learned Biblical scholar Christian present…and it is also why we need to read the writings of the Church and listen to what our clergy has to say.

I guess what I am saying, is there has to be a balance.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

Your final comment is a clue as to where you may be having some difficulty. Your evangelical heritage will not fall away so easily without a little work on first principles. One of the first principles of Evangelicals is a self-sufficient private judgment. This principle is itself very unbiblical. The Holy Spirit is unable to help those who close their ears to His truths. The Catholic Church should be looked upon, in matters of biblical interpretation, as the voice of the Holy Spirit. This is in fact paramount, and a first principle with Catholics.

It’s not an easy road you have decided to follow, and few would be willing to suffer the mortifications of shedding a lifetime of presumed truths. But your reward will be truly great, and your Faith profoundly deepened if you can stay on it.

PS
Thanks for the encouragement.
This is a very overwhelming process…especially considering that our (my husband and I) call to the Catholic Church only began on Christmas Eve and we didn’t join RCIA until early January. And we got Confirmed in March! It’s been an absolute whirlwind and I am STILL trying not look like a dope at mass because I don’t all the prayers and processes!!!

 

[BRB]

I know as a Protestant and even as a new Catholic, I have trouble with Marian doctrine because it is weak on Biblical evidence. And the ole Baptist in me says, ‘if it ain’t in the Bible then it ain’t necessarily so’. End of story.

For me, it makes no difference if Mary was always a Virgin or not. It also makes no difference if she was a sinner (though definately more Holy than any other person, I would say) or not…it doesn’t take away from Jesus’ perfection. To me, it seems unbiblical to imply that anyone other than Jesus was free from sin…including his mother.

.

I agree with your take. Except, some Protestants also choose to believe Mary remained virgin for life … since she may have, the scriptures don’t say clearly on this. I choose to believe she did remain a virgin.

I’ve read many Catholic books on Mary. I’m yet to be convinced that Catholics are right on 1) no original sin and 2) assumption of Mary. I don’t see the evidence for it … not even in the Churches early traditions. Eusebius never mentions it his Early Church History. All Catholics have to go on, is the mention of Mary as she is pictured in Revelations.

I’ve re-read the account of Mary in Gospels … and I only see that she accepted God’s will to become mother of Christ. Now if any 15 y.o. Jewish girl has an angel talking to them about the matter … I think they wouldn’t refuse either. Yet, it is interesting that Mary did question Gabriel about how it was possible … that she could bear a child w/o being married yet.

Now, the father of John the Baptist also had similar doubts … that Elizabeth would be capable of having child in her old age.

Why was he punished for disbelief … when Mary was not ??
The account suggests to me that Mary was not sinless from birth … otherwise, why did she exhibit disbelief ? Would a perfected, immaculate one express doubts ??

All I see from the account in gospel is that she finally accepted Gabriel’s explanation … and the Holy Spirit came upon her … as she gave her consent.

She was probably the first Christian in world. She was reborn via spirit @ that moment … and remained perfected thereafter. If so … her soul is in heaven now … although for us to presume she had bodily assumption like Christ and certain of O.T. prophets is to speculate.

Knowing she is now in heaven, the most blessed among all women, the mother of my Lord, and the mother of the Church … is more than enough reason for me to give her praise, honor due, and my veneration.

But, I also know that Mary would want us all to honor her Son first and foremost. We pray to her … knowing she goes to Jesus with our concerns. I really think Catholics overdue the prayers to Mary. 99 % of the time we should be praying to the Lord … and thanking Him for his / our blessed mother.

So, even though I think the full Catholic Mariology teachings are not well supported … I think they are well within reason to expect us to venerate our Mother Mary. Protestants should not give Catholics a hard time over this matter. At least Catholics are 100% right on Eucharist, Confirmation, and probably Purgatory … which cause issues for many Protestants.

 

[BRB]

but I am Christian first, Catholic second. My first instructor will always be the Bible as I understand through prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Good for you

Same for me … Christians exist in a number of various churches. I do feel after studing early Church history … than God’s universal church is Catholic. Protestants have 1600 years of Christian roots in the Catholic church …which they don’t talk much of.

But, Protestants do have some issues they need to address:

OSAS, not doing weekly Eucharist, overlooking Confirmation, and letting the Morals of their faith dissolve away over last 50 years.

This is why many openminded Protestants are investigating Catholocism today. Catholics need to see/seize all opportunities to welcome Protestants back … after 400 years of separation. Christ does not desire us to be fighting each other … we need to unify.

 

[RWMorris]

If he was a priest and didn’t believe in any of that stuf then…what on earth was he actually Preaching about the miracles of Jesus?

Like most liberal theists, he urged everyone to love each other, save the earth, respect women’s right to choose, and defeat the evil republicans.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

PS
Thanks for the encouragement.
This is a very overwhelming process…especially considering that our (my husband and I) call to the Catholic Church only began on Christmas Eve and we didn’t join RCIA until early January. And we got Confirmed in March! It’s been an absolute whirlwind and I am STILL trying not look like a dope at mass because I don’t all the prayers and processes!!!

You have my deepest respect and best wishes on the road you are travelling. It is a hard one, and one can’t be overly anxious about the many details that in time will take care of themselves. Adhere to the Truth and look to first principles, and you shall succeed!

 

[sarah_anne_628]

I agree with your take. Except, some Protestants also choose to believe Mary remained virgin for life … since she may have, the scriptures don’t say clearly on this. I choose to believe she did remain a virgin.

I’ve read many Catholic books on Mary. I’m yet to be convinced that Catholics are right on 1) no original sin and 2) assumption of Mary. I don’t see the evidence for it … not even in the Churches early traditions. Eusebius never mentions it his Early Church History. All Catholics have to go on, is the mention of Mary as she is pictured in Revelations.

I’ve re-read the account of Mary in Gospels … and I only see that she accepted God’s will to become mother of Christ. Now if any 15 y.o. Jewish girl has an angel talking to them about the matter … I think they wouldn’t refuse either. Yet, it is interesting that Mary did question Gabriel about how it was possible … that she could bear a child w/o being married yet.

Now, the father of John the Baptist also had similar doubts … that Elizabeth would be capable of having child in her old age.

Why was he punished for disbelief … when Mary was not ??
The account suggests to me that Mary was not sinless from birth … otherwise, why did she exhibit disbelief ? Would a perfected, immaculate one express doubts ??

All I see from the account in gospel is that she finally accepted Gabriel’s explanation … and the Holy Spirit came upon her … as she gave her consent.

She was probably the first Christian in world. She was reborn via spirit @ that moment … and remained perfected thereafter. If so … her soul is in heaven now … although for us to presume she had bodily assumption like Christ and certain of O.T. prophets is to speculate.

Knowing she is now in heaven, the most blessed among all women, the mother of my Lord, and the mother of the Church … is more than enough reason for me to give her praise, honor due, and my veneration.

But, I also know that Mary would want us all to honor her Son first and foremost. We pray to her … knowing she goes to Jesus with our concerns. I really think Catholics overdue the prayers to Mary. 99 % of the time we should be praying to the Lord … and thanking Him for his / our blessed mother.

So, even though I think the full Catholic Mariology teachings are not well supported … I think they are well within reason to expect us to venerate our Mother Mary. Protestants should not give Catholics a hard time over this matter. At least Catholics are 100% right on Eucharist, Confirmation, and probably Purgatory … which cause issues for many Protestants.

I think Mary definately could have refused the call to be the Mother of God. I think she was chosen by God because she was especially Holy and like David, after God’s own heart.

It is difficult to say why Zechariah was punished and Mary was not. Although the Bible is a little ambiguous about it, I think the difference is that Zechariah actually doubted the possibility…his faith was weak. Mary, on the other hand, was doubting that it could happen, but rather, was questioning the logistics of it all.

It’s kind of like why did God accept Abel’s sacrifice but not Cain’s. The Bible doesn’t really say…but again, I think it has something to do with Cain’s heart and faith…they weren’t in the right place when he made the sacrifice.

Anyway, I had trouble with that, too, until I heard my preacher explain it years ago.