Divine Mercy Chaplet for Protestants?

[CJP69]

Have a little faith, with Bible alone theology, no deduction is impossible. Deductions up to and including that Jesus is a spaceman. And there is no arbiter to say they are wrong, they are citing scripture.[/quoite]
Which is why it isn't and has never been the bible alone.

I have presented from Calvin and Luther’s lectures on the subject in previous posts, but don’t have me chase your tennis balls, go retrieve their wisdom for yourself it’s all out there.

I couldn't care less what Calvin and Luther said or didn't say in their lectures.

 

[Silverhair]

No, Calvin was purely citing scripture.

“There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had 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. There we see that he had never known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.

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 no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture, which is, as St. Paul says, “to be used for our edification.” John Calvin.

So to lend yourself to “ foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture “



Don’t give me that, Calvin had exactly the same Scripture we have. Isn’t that all the best information we need according to you guys.

Besides the most convincing argument for me is not just the early reformers, but all the ancient and Apostolic Churches from the beginning have all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, all and without question, unanimously. Even when they were in schism amongst themselves about other things, on this, they were always in agreement.

Mary’s virginity stands as God’s permanent Sign of Christ’s Divinity, not conceived of man.

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a Sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14

Mary is the Sign.

“And a great Sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” Revelation 12:1

@Cathode you said "suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children" but you have yet to show us the passage that suggests she stayed a virgin but you deny one that says she did not. The RCC does have a strange way of understanding scripture. And to quote you again to lend yourself to “ foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture “

Yes Calvin had exactly the same Scripture we have. Isn’t that all the best information we need according to you guys. And because he was coming from his RCC training he made the same error you continue to make. He ignored what scripture said and held to what he had been taught.

The church believed Christ would be born of a virgin not that she would stay a virgin.

What stands as God’s permanent Sign of Christ’s Divinity was His resurrection not that a virgin bore Him. No wonder people question the RCC odd beliefs. They just pull them out of they hat what the time seems right to fool the masses.

 

[rsr]

Enough.