Protestant Friend Emails Me This


#1

The Reformers (Luther, etc.), taught a basic rule of Bible interpretation that they referred to as “The Analogy of Faith”. That is, because God provided the Holy Scriptures as the supreme authority of faith, we are to interpret Scripture by Scripture, NOT by man’s reasoning. The word “comparing” used in this verse, means to compare spiritual things with spiritual so that our thought structures “join together fitly, compound, and combine” to reinforce biblical truth. If I attempt to combine my own “truth” with God’s truth, my thoughts will NOT “join together fitly”; they will be filled with disappointment and disillusionment. Jesus said, “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”, not, “you shall mix my truth with man’s wisdom and come to a compromise that makes sense to you”.

And I thought self interpretation was frowned upon. http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

(2 Peter 1-20) - ***Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. ***

*(2 Peter 3-16) - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. ***

**(Acts 8-30) - *****And Philip ran thither to him, and read him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. ***


#2

Since your friend likes the reformers and their biblical interpretations…

Martin Luther

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, *ibid., *v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, *ibid.,*v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, *ibid.,*v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

John Calvin

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) }

God Bless,
RyanL


#3

oh…and don’t forget…

Huldreich Zwingli

[list]
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

[/list] {G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

[list]
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’

[/list] {Thurian, ibid., p.76}

[list]
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

[/list] {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger

[list]
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .

‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’

[/list] {In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she 

brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

{"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, *John Wesley*, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}

#4

God preached and didn’t wrote anything. It is the Tradition that is necessary. Bible is only written for the Apostles will recall the basic teachings of Christ.

Did Jesus said that “follow the Bible or the Scripture”? He said that we must obey GOD’s Word. These words are not primarily written, but it was spoken. It was just written for us to remember the basic Teachings of GOD.

St. John the Evangelist said that what he had written is not the complete life of Jesus. For if he is going to write all the aorks of Jesus it will not fit into the world.

That means that the life and teachings of Jesus cannot be found all in the Bible. It is the Tradition that fills up the others.


#5

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.