John Calvin Believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

* * * * *

It strikes me that Catholic magisterial authority appears to function in the same fashion. To take one of the most vexing doctrines for me, Perpetual Virginity, the normal rules of hermeneutics, when applied in any reasonable manner, cannot possibly conclude that what Matthew and Luke are really trying to tell us is that Joseph and Mary were married, but celibate; or that Jesus’ brothers were really cousins. Nothing in the text supports that conclusion by any objective measure or reading.

*

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. (Luther’s Works, vol. 22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539] )

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned.

(Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 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] )

I’m sure you would agree that it is important to go no further than the facts allow; and this is what Calvin is saying here. In researching Perpetual Virginity, I noticed several Catholic sites claiming Calvin in defense of the belief. But in fact, he cannot be pressed quite so far; he goes only so far as to criticize Helvidius for going beyond necessary inference. I trust that you will help your Catholic brothers to be factually accurate on this point.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Again, being careful on the facts here, I don’t think that either Luther or Calvin was a dolt.

*

*

*

*

So we want to be careful here about what’s being challenged. I’m not challenging the proposition that Mary remained virgin. I have my doubts; I think that 1 Cor 7 is decisive about what godly marriage should look like. But I can be wrong. Clearly, men whom I admire as thinkers and scholars (Luther in particular) disagreed with me.

*

*

*

To summarize what you were saying then (as opposed to now, under challenge), and my replies:

1) “Normal rules of hermeneutics, when applied in any reasonable manner, cannot possibly” lead us to the PVM (including Jesus’ “brothers” being cousins).
2) “Nothing in the text supports that conclusion by any objective measure or reading.”
3) The Catholic Church (strong implication: outrageously so) declares the dogma, despite the clear intent of “normal, reasonable, objective” hermeneutics and in the teeth of original intent.
4) I reply that Luther, Calvin (with documentation) and many other Protestants also believe in the PVM.
5) (Luther and) Calvin did not accept Catholic infallible authority.
6) Therefore, if Calvin accepted the PVM, he must have done so on scriptural basis only (or tradition understood in a non-binding fashion, excluding apostolic succession as traditionally understood).
7) This being the case, it follows that Calvin was a “hermeneutical dolt” (so was Luther) — as I colorfully described it, since he fell prey to all these things you criticize the Catholic Church for: neglect of normal, reasonable, objective hermeneutics, in the teeth of original intent.
8) Therefore, your original criticism of Catholic hermeneutics here also applies to Calvin.
9) But now you want to deny the logic of it, by saying, “I don’t think that either Luther or Calvin was a dolt.”
10) You also tried to deny that Calvin believed in the PVM.
11) I produced much documentation from Protestant sources (mostly Reformed) holding that he did in fact accept it.
12) One can legitimately differ on whether he did or not, as I have already stated, but I think what I have established is that your characterization of how clear-cut the hermeneutical issue is (supposedly against the PVM) is unwarranted. The issue is not nearly as simple as you made out.
13) Thus, you should either modify your original strong, critical statements against Catholic hermeneutics or apply the ire equally to Luther and Calvin (or at least Luther: whom you yourself admit did accept the PVM). The tendency in so much of the Protestant critique of Catholicism (even irenic, reasonable, thoughtful ones such as yours) is to have one standard for Catholics and another for Protestants who believe the same thing in particulars. we’re blasted for unreasonableness or excessive arbitrary dogmatism, while important Protestants who agree in particulars are given a pass (or else it is not known in the first place that they agree with us).

I would encourage you not to rush to enlist Calvin to your cause until you have weighed what he says concerning Matt 1.25 with his commentary on 1 Cor 7. His criticism of Helvidius in the commentary on Matt 1.25 is a common criticism that he makes of many folk of going beyond the evidence. It is common for Calvin to criticize this or that commentator on those grounds, sometimes while agreeing with their conclusions in the main (here, he does not express agreement with Helvidius).

Meanwhile, his criticism of Jerome’s views of virginity in the commentary on 1 Cor 7 are quite strong, and Calvin undercuts Jerome’s entire support for PV at a stroke.

Now we must observe what he means by the word good, when he declares that it is good to abstain from marriage, that we may not conclude, on the other hand, that the marriage connection is therefore evil — a mistake which Jerome has fallen into . . .

Intercourse is never without sin; but God excuses it by his grace because the estate of marriage is his work, and he preserves in and through the sin all that good which he has implanted and blessed in marriage. (The Estate of Marriage [1522]; translated by Walther I. Brandt; pp. 17-49 in Luther’s Works, Volume 45 [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962], p. 49)

Nor has the error as to this matter been confined to the common people and illiterate persons; for even the most eminent doctors, devoting themselves unreservedly to the commendation of virginity, and forgetting human infirmity, have overlooked this admonition of Paul — nay rather, of Christ himself. Jerome, blinded by a zeal, I know not of what sort, does not simply fall, but rushes headlong, into false views. Virginity, I acknowledge, is an excellent gift; but keep it in view, that it is a gift. Learn, besides, from the mouth of Christ and of Paul, that it is not common to all, but is given only to a few. Guard, accordingly, against rashly devoting what is not in your own power, and what you will not obtain as a gift, if forgetful of your calling you aspire beyond your limits.

The sum is this, that an unmarried life has many advantages, and that these are not to be despised, provided every one measures himself according to his own size and measure. Hence, though virginity should be extolled even to the third heavens, this, at the same time, always remains true — that it does not suit all, but only those who have a special gift from God.

Let us always, however, bear in mind, that these evils do not belong to marriage, but proceed from the depravity of men. Hence the calumnies of Jerome, who scrapes together all these things for the purpose of bringing marriages into disrepute, fall. For, were any one to condemn agriculture, merchandise, and other modes of life, on this ground, that amidst so many corruption’s of the world, there is not one of them that is exempt from certain evils, who is there that would not smile at his folly? Observe, then, that whatever evil there is in marriage, has its origin somewhere else . . .

As to Jerome’s making a handle of the expression sinneth not, for reviling marriage, with a view to its disparagement, as if it were not a praiseworthy action to dispose of a daughter in marriage, it is quite childish.

*

So if indeed Calvin held to PV as a private opinion (and that’s logically possible), he did so on grounds much different from the RCC and from Jerome in particular.

But until then, it seems that we should not claim that “Calvin supported PV” or “Calvin believed in PV” unless we have a primary source in hand showing that he supported or believed in PV. Right?

(Ditto for Bullinger. I’m seeing a lot of secondary sources claiming Bullinger’s support of PV, but I can’t find it in the primary sources. I’ll keep looking.)

But the most important point is the difference between Luther and Zwingli, and the RCC doctrine.

Both men affirmed the proposition that Mary remained a virgin all her days. But no Reformer ever affirmed PV as a dogma, a belief necessary for salvation.

*

*

This is the key point. You may believe in PV all your life, and I might disagree with you all my life, but we have the freedom in Christ to disagree on that matter.

PV is not a doctrine taught in Scripture; and if it were necessary for salvation, the apostles would have written it down. So says Irenaeus, and he’s right.

So we want to be careful here about what’s being challenged. I’m not challenging the proposition that Mary remained virgin. I have my doubts; I think that 1 Cor 7 is decisive about what godly marriage should look like.

*

Clearly, men whom I admire as thinkers and scholars (Luther in particular) disagreed with me.

What I’m challenging is the elevation of PV to the status of dogma, a doctrine without which one cannot be saved, a doctrine whose denial makes one liable to anathema. (or “made one liable”, prior to the redefinition of anathema.)

And in so challenging, I’m getting to the heart of sola scriptura: we may hold all manner of pious opinions; but we as elders may only authoritatively require belief of those opinions taught by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.

To turn a phrase, sola scriptura is not so much about formal sufficiency of Scripture, but the formal necessity of Scripture for doctrine. In formal language:

The Formal Necessity of Scripture: Good and necessary inference from the Scriptural text is the necessary warrant for dogmatic proclamation.

Or to go back to our umpire analogy: the good umpire will only stand by decisions that can be scrutinized when we roll the tape and look at the play in slow motion. The point behind “good and necessary inference” is the requirement that all calls meet the scrutiny test: we can roll the tape and defend the doctrine from the Scriptural evidence.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*