Frederick Dale Bruner on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

  

What does Mary lose if she relates intimately to Joseph? Her virginity, to be sure, but does she then lose her purity, her worthiness, her dignity? Something close to affirming these questions seems to lie behind some defenses of Mary’s perpetual virginity. We are given the impression by some teaching that should Mary have later become a wife to Joseph physically she would have lost something spiritually. I believe that this persuasion is dangerous doctrinally and morally and that it is allied to other errors in the field of sexual ethics—from priestly celibacy and resisting women’s ordination to scientific contraception and annulment. Today, Catholic sexual teaching is in a veritable shambles. The rehabilitation of a fully married Mary will be a step toward reconstruction. Matthew’s subsequent record of Jesus’ honoring but not requiring single life (19:10–12) will be another step toward the wholeness of NT sexual teaching.

 

The theological intention of wanting Mary to be a perpetual virgin seems to damage the doctrine of marriage as seriously as it seems sometimes to contribute to a near deification of Mary. The most grave traditional Protestant argument against the Roman dogma of the virgin Mary is that Mary became, not only in popular piety but in formal definition, an invoked intercessor, an almost divine figure, and so a near idol. The titles mediatrix, auxiliarix, and the like, all place Mary dangerously close to the Godhead. Devotions are addressed to her. Prayers are at least mediated through her. And although Marian minimalists won the important contest at Vatican II, I do not believe that the most recent definitions have been fortunate—though they do seem somewhat less fulsome than earlier ones.

 

Mary has tended to replace the tender, compassionate side of Jesus in some popular Catholic piety: Jesus is judge, Mary is mediator. But Protestants have not found the Roman elevation of Mary in the apostolic accounts. We believe the Marian honors are dubious at best and pernicious at worst. We believe that a thorough demythologizing of Mary is required if church teaching is to be wholesome, not least in the ethical field. And we believe that this normalization is required for three reasons: (1) textually, the biblical records will not bear the weight of the Marian dogma; (2) morally, the dignity of sexual relations can be undermined by a veneration of Mary’s perpetual virginity; and (3) theologically, the integrity of the sole mediation of Jesus Christ is threatened by Marian devotion.

 

Christians should give Mary her deserved respect. G. K. Chesterton justifiably lamented that some Protestant “Christians hate her whom God kissed in Galilee.” Mary is, properly understood, “the mother of God” in that she is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is not only a man with us—he is that—but also God’s great personal act of condescension. (Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary: The Christbook, Matthew 1–12 (vol. 1, rev ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007], 49-50)

 

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) on the Testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Reformed Tradition

  

. . . revelation in Scripture assumes that humanity is also corrupted in its religious disposition and needs re-creation. It would therefore deny itself it is recognized the “unspiritual” person as its rightful judge. If Christianity is a religion of redemption in the full and true sense of the word and hence seeks to redeem human beings from all sin, from the errors of the mind as well as the impurity of the heart, as much from the death of the soul as from that of the body, it in the nature of the case cannot subject itself to the criticism of human beings but must subject them to its criticism. The revelation that comes to us in Christ through Scripture in fact takes that position towards us. It does not put itself on a level below us to ask for our approving or disapproving judgment on it but takes a position high above us and insist that we shall believe and obey. Scripture even expressly states that the unspiritual cannot understand the things of the spirit, that they are folly to them, that they reject and deny them in a spirit of hostility [1 Cor. 2:14]. The revelation of God in Christ does not ask for the support or approval of human beings. It posits and maintains itself in subline majesty. Its authority is normative as well as causative. It fights for its own victory. It itself conquers human hearts and makes itself irresistible.

 

Revelation, accordingly, now divides itself in two grand dispensations. When the economy of the Son, of objective revelation, is completed, that of the Spirit begins. God is the author also of this subject revelation, in other words, of this illumination and regeneration. . . . The Holy Spirit is the great and powerful witness to Christ, objectively in Scripture, subjectively in the very hearts of human beings. By that Spirit we receive a fitting organ for the reception of external revelation. God can only be known only by God; the light can be seen only in his light. . . . . By this witness of the Holy Spirit, revelation is realized in humanity and reaches its goal. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003], 1:505, 506)

 

The Testimony of the Spirit

 

This witness of the Holy Spirit has been all too one-sidedly applied, by Calvin and later Reformed theologians, to the authority of Holy Scripture. It seemed that it had no other import than the subjective assurance by itself. It was separated from the life of faith and seemed to refer to an extraordinary revelation of which Michaelis was honest enough to admit that he had never experienced it. Scripture, however, teaches very differently.

 

Generally speaking, the Holy Spirit was promised by Jesus as the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who leads first and apostles, then, by their word, also all other believers, into the truth. He witnesses of Christ to them and glorifies him (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:14). To that end he convicts people of sin (John 16:8-11), regenerates them (John 3:3), and prompts them to confess Christ as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). He further assures them of their adoption as children of God and of their heavenly inheritance (Rom. 8:14f.; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13; 4:30, makes known all the things believers have received from God (1 Cor. 2:12; 1 John 2:20; 3:24; 4:6-13), and in the church is the author of all Christian virtues and all spiritual gifts (Gal. 5:22; 1 Cor. 12:8-11). It is evident from all these passages that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is of a religious-ethical kind and intimately bound up with people’s own faith life. IT does not bypass people’s faith; it is not a voice from heaven, a dream or a vision. It is a witness that the Holy Spirit communicates in, with, and through our own spirit in faith. It is not given to unbelievers but is the portion only of the children of God. Episcopius therefore raised the objection (Inst. Theol. IV, sec I, c. 5 §2) that the testimony of the Holy Spirit cannot be a ground of faith because it is something that only comes later (John 7:38; 14:17; Acts 5:32; Gal. 3:2; 4:6). But from the very beginning faith itself is the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3) and receives its seal and confirmation in the Spirit of adoption. Believing itself is a witness of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and through our spirit. (Ibid., 593-94; cf. pp. 594-95 for a discussion of the testimony of the Spirit and ‘assurance’)

 

. . . Calvin also rightly linked the testimony of the Holy Spirit to Scripture as the word of God. This testimony has a “material object” in the content but also a “formal object” in the witness of Scripture, and the two are inseparable. When the Holy Spirit guarantees the trustworthiness of the apostolic witness who first, in Jesus’ name, proclaimed that gospel and thereby bound all humankind to their witness. But he also offers direct assurance of it. For the Holy Spirit does not reveal to the believer any previously unknown truth, neither in respect of Christ nor in respect of Scripture. He takes everything from Christ, and so the believer can only confess what Christ has given him or her. Scripture, however, contains a doctrine about itself, as much as about Christ. And the testimony of the Holy Spirit with respect to Scripture as Scripture consists in the fact—not that believers receive an immediate heavenly vision of the divinity of Scripture, nor that they mediately infer its divinity from the marks and criteria of Scripture, or, even less, than on the basis of the experience of the power that is unleashed by it they conclude that it is divine, but—that they freely and spontaneously recognize the authority with which Scripture everywhere asserts itself and which it repeatedly expressly claims for itself.

 

In this connection it is not the authenticity, nor the canonicity, not even the inspiration, but the divinity of Scripture, its divine authority, which is the true object of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. He causes believers to submit to Scripture and binds them to it in the same measure and intensity as to the person of Christ himself. . . . [against the charge of ‘circular reasoning] strictly speaking, the testimony of the Holy Spirit is not the final ground but the means of faith. The ground of faith is, and can only be, Scripture, or rather, the authority of God. (Ibid., 596, 597, italics in original; comment in square bracket added for clarification)

 

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) on the Reformed Understanding of the "Perspicuity" of Scripture

  

The doctrine of the perspicuity of Holy Scripture has frequently been misunderstood and misrepresented, both by Protestants and Catholics. It does not mean that the matters and subjects with which Scripture deals are not mysteries that far exceed the reach of the human intellect. Nor does it assert that Scripture is clear in all its parts, so that no scientific exegesis of needed, or that, also its doctrine of salvation, Scripture is plain and clear to every person without distinction. It means only that the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is nevertheless presented throughout all of Scripture in such a simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation of his or her soul can easily, by personal reading and study, learn to know that truth from Scriptures without the assistance and guidance of the church and the priest. The way of salvation, not as it concerns the matter itself but as it concerns the mode of transmission, has been clearly set down there for the reader desirous for salvation. While that reader may not understand the “how” (πως) of it, the “that” (οτι) is clear. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003], 1:477)

 

Herman Bavinck on the Distinction between "Divine Revelation" and "Scripture" and there being Differing Levels of "Inspiration"

On the topic of the relation in which Scripture stands to revelation, we find the following from Herman Bavinck (under the header “Incarnation, Language, and the Bible”):

 

The earlier theology almost completely allowed revelation to coincide with divine inspiration (θεοπνευστια), the gift of Scripture. It only incidentally referred to revelation and conceived of it much too narrowly. It seemed as if there was nothing behind Scripture. As a result Scripture came to stand in complete detachment and isolation and made it seem as if it had suddenly dropped out of heaven. The mighty conception of revelation as a history that began at the fall and ends only in the parousia was—at least to scientific theology—almost totally foreign. This view is untenable. After all, in by the majority of cases, revelation is antecedent to divine inspiration (θεοπνευστια) and often separated from it for a long time. The revelation of God to the patriarchs, in the history of Israel, in the person of Christ was sometimes not described till centuries and years later, and also the prophets and apostles frequently recorded their revelations only after their reception (e.g., Jer. 25:13; 30:1; 36:2ff.). In this connection not everything was recorded that, when it came, did in fact belong to the circle of revelation (John 20:30; 21:25). In addition there were many persons, such as Elijah, Elisha, Thomas, and Nathanel, etc., organs of revelation, who nevertheless never wrote a book that was included in the canon; others, by contrast, received no revelations and performed no miracles but did record them in writing, as for example the writers of many historical books. Revelation further took place in different forms (dream, vision, etc.) and was intended to make known something that was hidden; θεοπνευστια was always an interior working of God’s Spirit in and upon the [human] consciousness and several to guarantee the content of Scripture.

 

Modern theology therefore rightly made a distinction between divine revelation and Scripture. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003], 1:381, emphasis added)

 

Elsewhere, Bavinck notes that:

 

All the historical books of the OT were written by prophetic spirit (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 20:34; etc.). . . . The historical books are commentary on the facts of God’s covenant with Israel. They are not history in our sense of the word but prophecy . . . (Ibid., 393, emphasis added)

 

The above is significant as if one reads those passages, one finds a listing of books, said to be “prophecy” that are not in the canon of the Old Testament, such as "the book of Nathan the prophet (נביא)"; "the book of Gad the seer (חזה)"; "the prophecy (‎נבואה) of Ahijah the Shilonite"; "the visions (‎חזות) of Iddo the seer (חזה)."

 

New Testament examples would include, for instance, true (God-inspired) prophecy, such as the four unmarried daughters of Philip who "prophesied" in Acts 21:9 (prophecy that was not inscripturated).

 

I bring this up as it refutes many who take an all-or-nothing approach to “inspiration,” including this cretin (trying to be nice) who thinks that Latter-day Saints are in error for thinking people/texts (e.g., the U.S. Constitution) can be “inspired” but not in the same sense as inscripturated revelation:

He will have to then admit that “inspired” works such as those of Gad et al., were en par with the 66 books of the Protestant canon and, as Robert Bowman is forced to admit, there are missing inspired books in the Bible and/or (adding ‘and’ as, unlike Matthew Eklund, I have read some books on logic, so do not want to create a ‘false dichotomy’) admit that there are different levels of inspiration.

 

Further Reading

 

On the meaning of θεοπνευστος in 2 Tim 3:16, see the book-length study John C. Poirier, The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture (Library of New Testament Studies 640; London: T&T Clark, 2021). For a sampling of the evidence Poirier produces in his work, see my blog post Notes from John C. Poirier, The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture.

 

On Calvinism, see:

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

 

On Sola Scriptura, see:

 

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): Those who are not regenerated Cannot Ever Understand the Bible

For those who interact with Calvinists, the claim that one does not know the meaning of the biblical text being discussed is often bandied about, even when one interacts with the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, looking at the original language texts, sitz im leben of the text, modern scholarship, etc.  Often, too, the claim that the critic of Reformed theology does not understand Calvinism is bandied about too, even if one has read Calvin, Turretin, Berkhof, etc. Why is "nuh-uh" a standard response by Calvinists? In their theology, no one who is a "non-believer" can truly understand the Bible ever. Don't take my word for it. Here is Herman Bavinck:

Just as prophecy and miracle, word and fact accompany each other in effecting revelation; so also in applying revelation, illumination and regeneration. Scripture and church are linked to each other. Now too revelation is not just doctrine that illumines the mind but at the same time a life that renews the heart. It is both together in unbreakable unity. We must avoid both the one-sidedness of intellectualism and that of mysticism, for they are both a denial of the riches of revelation. Since both head and heart, the whole person in being and consciousness, must be renewed and heart, the whole person in being and consciousness, must be renewed, revelation in this dispensation is continued jointly in Scripture and the church. In this context the two are most intimately connected. Scripture is the light of the church, the church the life of Scripture. Apart from the church, Scripture is an enigma and an offense. Without rebirth no one can know it. Those who do not participate in its life cannot understand its meaning and point of view. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003], 1:384, emphasis added)

 

Raymond E. Brown: In John 17:5, the Personal Preexistence of Jesus is "Historicized"

While attempting to downplay the forces of passages that teach the personal (not merely notional) preexistence of Jesus, the late Raymond E. Brown was forced to concede that John 17:5 teaches the personal preexistence of Jesus:

 

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 there is a hint of creational activity by Jesus Christ, but this theme is much clearer in Colossians 1:15-17. The language of Philippians 2:6-7 (being “in the form of God”—emptying and “taking the form of a servant”) was once thought to be clearly incarnational; but recent writing by Protestants and Catholics alike (Talbert, Bartsch, Grelot, Murphy-O’Connor) questions a reference to preexistence. This means that the attitude of the indisputably Pauline letters (Corinthians, Philippians) is uncertain; but in the late-Pauline (60s) or in the post-Pauline period (80s—date of Colossians?) the theme of preexistence becomes clearer. This period from the 60s to 90s would also cover the span of Johannine composition (final Gospel in the 90s), although the Johannine theme of preexistence represents an “advance” over the Pauline theme in two ways: [a] The Johannine Word is not a creature—compare Colossians 1:16; [b] Preexistence is historicized in a Gospel about the earthly Jesus (John 17:5) rather than simply appearing in poetic humans of wisdom derivation. (Raymond E. Brown, Christ in the Gospels of the Liturgical Year [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2008], 133 n. 3)

 

Herman Bavinck's Negative view on Philosophy

In his Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Prolegomena, Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) demonstrated a rather negative attitude towards philosophy, or as some LDS would put it, “teachings of men mingled with scripture”:

 

The Triumph of Philosophy

 

In the nineteenth century Lutheran dogmatics was characterized by the fact that it had almost completely fallen under the influence of philosophy. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003], 1:163)

 

Resistance and Revision of Lutheran Orthodoxy

 

From the side of a churchly orthodoxy, there naturally arose resistance against those various minglings of theology and philosophy. After the theology of mediation, a theology of separation was bound to follow. The study of the church’s confessions and the historical dogmatics of de Wette, Bretschneider, Hase, Schmid, and Schkeckenburger, strengthened confessional consciousness. . . . Opposition to the mingling of philosophy and theology arose from still another side. In philosophy Liebmann, through his work Kant und die Epigonen (Stuttgartt, 1865), and F.A. Lange in his Geschichte des Materialismus 1866), issued a slogan: “Back to Kant.” The speculation of Hegal and Schelling had come to nothing. The intellect must again come to a realization of its own finitude and limitations and not presume to have knowledge of the supersensible. Alongside of its room must be reserved for faith or imagination. Reason is restriction to the sphere of sense perception. In dogmatics this neo-Kantianism was adopted by Lipsius and Ritschel . . . (Ibid., 168, 169, emphasis added)

 

Zwingli laid down only the general contours within which various strains in the Reformed churches later unfolded. It took Calvin’s organization genius and systematic mind to give to the Swiss Reformation its clearly defined doctrine and stable organization. Calvin’s theology had already assumed firm shape in the first edition of his Institutes (1536). There is expansion and development but not change. Calvin differs from Zwingli in that he banishes all philosophical and humanistic ideas and adheres as rigorously as possible to Scripture. Further, more successfully than Zwingli, he maintains the objectivity of the Christian religion, of the covenant o God, of the person and work of Christ, of Scripture, church, and sacrament, and is therefore in a stronger position to resist the Anabaptists. (Ibid., 178, emphasis added)