What is amazing here is that the starter of this thread and the rest of them who go into such detail and defense of their false doctrine claiming Mary had other Children fail to even stick to their own tradition handed down to them by the starters of their movement.
Martin Luther:
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone. "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.
John Calvin: Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”. “Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” "Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ. Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. "To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.
Ulrich Zwingli: "It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.
"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 used *Exodus *4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary. "Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin. "It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother. “The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow.”
This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine - although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation.
Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era, which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.
Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been “covered up” by their most zealous followers such as you- with damaging theological and practical consequences. This “cover-up” can be detected even in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, an Evangelical critique of Mariology. One of the contributors admits, “Most remarkable to modern Protestants is the Reformers’ almost universal acceptance of Mary’s continuing virginity, and their widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner”. He then asks if it is “a favourable providence” that kept these Marian teachings of the Reformers from being “transmitted to the Protestant churches”!
What a Marian critic interprets as “Providence” may legitimately be interpreted as a force of a very different kind by a Christian who has recognized the role of Mary in God’s plan.
Ken
