Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Christian Soldier]

Also

I am not an Arminian


I m a Christian; a follower of Christ and His teachings.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9

Everybody claims to be a Christian, while they hold to radically different and opposing interpretations of the gospel. The Arminian / Calvinist debate has been raging for the past 500 years, Every Christian denomination holds to one of these two opposing camps.

The Church was divided into two camps over these two opposing interpretations of the gospel, I'm sure you're familiar with the radically different views held by the two camps. The Church was so divided that a war broke out and tens of thousands lost their lives to defend their theology.

Some have claimed that there is a third interpretation, but nobody has ever found it, or described this mysterious third option. So the Church remains vehemently divided over this issue to this day, and it will always remain divided because, their theological differences are irreconcilable.

There's no way to unite those who hold to the "saved b y works gospel version" and those who hold to the "saved by grace gospel". Some have tried to mingle the two, to form a new religion but neither side supported it so it never gained any traction.

 

[JLB]

The Arminian / Calvinist debate has been raging for the past 500 years, Every Christian denomination holds to one of these two opposing camps.

Im neither a Calvinist or an Arminian.


You seem to be enamored with divisive terms that places God’s people in a man made “section”.


There are no divisions in Christ.


You either abide in the doctrine of Christ, or you are no longer in Christ.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9


Let’s be those who follow the Lord, and do and teach what He taught.

 

[GodsGrace]

Everybody claims to be a Christian, while they hold to radically different and opposing interpretations of the gospel. The Arminian / Calvinist debate has been raging for the past 500 years, Every Christian denomination holds to one of these two opposing camps.

Thank you for admitting that Calvinism DID NOT EXIST before the 1500's.
It was NEVER taught in the early church.

The Church was divided into two camps over these two opposing interpretations of the gospel, I'm sure you're familiar with the radically different views held by the two camps. The Church was so divided that a war broke out and tens of thousands lost their lives to defend their theology.

Isn't it wonderful that John Calvin caused what Jesus stated was NEVER to happen?

Here is what Jesus stated:


John 17:20-21
20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.


John Calvin came with a different gospel....actually there is no gospel in Calvinism.

And YOU trust HIS teaching !

Instead of that of Jesus.

Some have claimed that there is a third interpretation, but nobody has ever found it, or described this mysterious third option. So the Church remains vehemently divided over this issue to this day, and it will always remain divided because, their theological differences are irreconcilable.

The church is divided because reformed theology divided it.
NOT because God divided it.

And why are the theological differences irreconcilable?
Because they teach a DIFFERENT God...
a God that does not exist and is not represented by Jesus.

There's no way to unite those who hold to the "saved b y works gospel version" and those who hold to the "saved by grace gospel". Some have tried to mingle the two, to form a new religion but neither side supported it so it never gained any traction.

Who said anything about works?

 

[Christian Soldier]

Apparently God HAS spoken to those that teach Calvinism...like John Calvin for example...
because they teach a DIFFERENT gospel.
Which we are warned against.

Galatians 1:7-8
7 which is really not another; only * there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!


Please explain what the gospel message is in reformed theology.



Unfortunately, depending on our FEELING is NOT how we can know that we are saved.
Going to AAA can be a life changing even, but it will not save your soul.


The NT teaches us HOW we can know that we are saved.
John 3:16
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.


John 3:36
36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Correct. In reformed theology God cannot be known.
And yet Jesus stated that He is the image of God....

John 10:30
30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:9
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long * with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father;




If you're right, I suppose there's no reason for the NT since none of it teaches us about God.

Maybe Jesus didn't mean it when He stated:

John 12:48-50
48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
50 "I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."

What is the gospel and what is a different gospel??? you make these nonsensical comments without any basis apart from your feelings. I'm sorry to see your emotions are out of control and causing you grief.

You have been attacking, mocking, trashing and hating Reformed Theology for the past couple of years. Then you come and admit you know nothing about Reformed Theology or which gospel message we hold to.

Can't you see how pathetic your throw away rhetoric has been all along, you condemn something you know nothing about. That speaks volumes about your theology and spiritual sate.

You won't allow the truth of the gospel to get in your way, because ignorance is bliss. The gospel has the stench of death to the lot, but it has a sweet smelling aroma to those of us who are believers.

Why don't you equip yourself with an overview of Reformed Theology, by doing a web search. Don't just read what the enemies of the truth have to say about it, just find out what what we believe and why. That way you will be qualified to comment on it.

I'll just put an example of the type of site, which gives an overview and draws some comparisons with Arminian Theology.

https://heavenslight.org/wp-content...vinism_and_Arminianism_TULIP_Chart_1_2007.pdf

 

[Christian Soldier]

Im neither a Calvinist or an Arminian.


You seem to be enamored with divisive terms that places God’s people in a man made “section”.


There are no divisions in Christ.


You either abide in the doctrine of Christ, or you are no longer in Christ.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9


Let’s be those who follow the Lord, and do and teach what He taught.

That's all well and good, but how do we deal with the problem of two radically opposed theological camps, both claiming to be "Christians", while they teach opposite versions of the gospel.

Below is a table of division, every Christian holds to one of these two positions. There is no third position, if there is I'd love to hear about it.

https://heavenslight.org/wp-content...vinism_and_Arminianism_TULIP_Chart_1_2007.pdf

 

[Christian Soldier]

Thank you for admitting that Calvinism DID NOT EXIST before the 1500's.
It was NEVER taught in the early church.



Isn't it wonderful that John Calvin caused what Jesus stated was NEVER to happen?

Here is what Jesus stated:


John 17:20-21
20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.


John Calvin came with a different gospel....actually there is no gospel in Calvinism.

And YOU trust HIS teaching !

Instead of that of Jesus.

The church is divided because reformed theology divided it.
NOT because God divided it.

And why are the theological differences irreconcilable?
Because they teach a DIFFERENT God...
a God that does not exist and is not represented by Jesus.



Who said anything about works?

What did Calvin teach that Jesus didn't teach????? answer NOTHING!!!! please don't make foolish comments without any basis apart from your emotional instability.

 

[JLB]

That's all well and good, but how do we deal with the problem of two radically opposed theological camps, both claiming to be "Christians", while they teach opposite versions of the gospel.

Below is a table of division, every Christian holds to one of these two positions. There is no third position, if there is I'd love to hear about it.

https://heavenslight.org/wp-content...vinism_and_Arminianism_TULIP_Chart_1_2007.pdf

‘Each person is responsible for studying to show themselves approved.


Im here to teach the truth and guide people towards Christ Jesus and His teachings.

 

[Behold]

God is not an Arminian

Neither am I, an Arminian.

You have been taught the Satanic lie of Arminianism, and that is that God is powerless to save His people, so His people must save themselves by keeping every single law.

im not a Legalist.
No one is saved by Keeping the Law.
How do you know?

See the Cross of Christ for the answer......which is discovered as : "Justififcation by faith"

Also,

I have 2 questions for you. @Christian Soldier, and you are afraid to answer them, we've noticed , as this is the 3rd time ive asked you.

Now...You have been taught the lie of Hyper-Calvinism........and that is....."God predestines some for heaven, which means God predestined some for Hell".

This means that some in YOUR FAMILY are "predestined for Hell", according to what YOU Believe @Christian Soldier

1.) So, who are they in your family, that God predestined for Hell. ?? Mother, Father, Siblings, Grandmother?... Who???

2.) Why did God predestine some of your family members for Hell, while He predestined you for heaven.. you believe?

 

[RomeSweetHome]

I usually do approach posters in a less-rigid way - untill the start with the lies and anti-Cahtolic slurs.

It's uaually at this pont that they need to be taken out to the proverbial woodshed and straighted out . . .

I understand.

It's just, well, let me put it this way--how Scott Hahn concludes in Hail Holy Queen is a good reminder for us all: "when you defend the Blessed Virgin, you're defending your mother, not a quarterback, not a goal line. You should defend her only as she would want to be defended."

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The church is correct b cause that's what Jesus said.

I couldn't care less what your opinion of me is.

Well I am glad you could care less of my opinion! Rome said it not the church.

Also you are not even being literal about the Lords Supper. You hold to the Romanist view of deep spiritual mysticstuff, but Jesus said this:

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Seems Jesus was talking more about food and drink and not some spiritual event.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

"Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless." James 1:26. I said that not for my sake but for yours.



Interesting. Debatable, I suppose. But since you think your position is elementary grammar, let's consider the grammar:

εἱστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή

Thats the text of John 19:25. Notice that the author uses "kai" - "and" - twice, once before introducing a new woman in the list. Notice that there is no "kai" between the second woman named ("the sister of his mother") and the reference to "Mary the [wife] of Klopas." Most likely the author is using "kai" in this list the way we would use commas in lists today, and he is identifying three people; Jesus's mother, the sister of Jesus's mother (i.e., Mary the wife of Klopas), and Mary Magdalene. Even James Strong (yes, that James Strong of Protestant-beloved concordance fame) recognizes the grammatical force of this reading and agrees that the author was only speaking of three people here. (McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia) And the ESV, a Protestant translation supposedly among the most faithful to the text (I am told by Reformed Protestants in particular, anyway), adopts this view by recognizing that "Mary the wife of Clopas" is a postpositive adjective phrase modifying "sister": "standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

So who is violating the "simple rules of grammar" here? I too am amazed about the lengths people who name the name of Jesus will go to avoid the teaching of Scripture as understood and handed down through what Paul called the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," i.e., what the Nicene Creed would later refer to as the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Well, as the authorities I have read, no "kai" is needed to follow Mary the wife of Cleophas.
And "sister" means sister. Not cousin, relative, fellow country men or just a person, the context does not allow it.

As for following Romanism, Why should we when they went so far astray from Sripture.

Perpetual virginity
Mary never sinning
Purgatory
Limbo
eating meat on Fridays is a mortal sin
celibacy
Vain repititious prayer.

all believers are part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. but we are not part of the Catholic sect.

 

[Behold]

I understand.

It's just, well, let me put it this way--how Scott Hahn concludes in Hail Holy Queen is a good reminder for us all: "when you defend the Blessed Virgin, you're defending your mother, not a quarterback, not a goal line. You should defend her only as she would want to be defended."

This is not Chrisitiaity.

This is MaryCult.

- Be not deceived.

- Be not deceived.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This misses the point.

Here's the Greek text of Tobit 7:1-4, part of the LXX:

ΚΑΙ ἦλθον εἰς ᾿Εκβάτανα καὶ παρεγένοντο εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Ῥαγουήλ, Σάρρα δὲ ὑπήντησεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐχαιρέτισεν αὐτοὺς καὶ αὐτοὶ αὐτήν, καὶ εἰσήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν. 2 καὶ εἶπε Ῥαγουὴλ ῎Εδνᾳ τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ· ὡς ὅμοιος ὁ νεανίσκος Τωβὶτ τῷ ἀνεψιῷ μου; 3 καὶ ἠρώτησεν αὐτούς Ῥαγουήλ· πόθεν ἐστέ, ἀδελφοί; καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Νεφθαλὶμ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων ἐκ Νινευῆ. 4 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· γινώσκετε Τωβὶτ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν; οἱ δὲ εἶπον· γινώσκομεν. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ὑγιαίνει;

Verse 2 refers to Tobit "my cousin" (ἀνεψιῷ) (see Strong's Greek: 431. ἀνεψιός (anepsios) -- Cousin ) then verse 4 refers to Tobit "our brother" (ἀδελφὸν).

So I ask again--where are you getting this idea that the LXX translators didn't have a word for cousin they could've used?

Well the book of Tobit was not written by the 72. It is considered written in the fist century BC while the Septuagint was considered written in the 3rd century. 200 years brough the word anepsios

At the House of Raguel.
1When they entered Ecbatana, Tobiah said, “Brother Azariah, bring me straight to the house of our kinsman Raguel.” So he did, and they came to the house of Raguel, whom they found seated by his courtyard gate. They greeted him first, and he answered, “Many greetings to you, brothers! Welcome! You have come in peace! Now enter in peace!” And he brought them into his house.
2He said to his wife Edna, “How this young man resembles Tobit, the son of my uncle!”
3So Edna asked them, saying, “Where are you from, brothers?” They answered, “We are descendants of Naphtali, now captives in Nineveh.”
4She said to them, “Do you know our kinsman Tobit?” They answered her, “Indeed, we do know him!” She asked, “Is he well?”
5They answered, “Yes, he is alive and well.” Then Tobiah said, “He is my father!”

Well you have a problem then.

For to Raguel Tobit is both brother and cousin! Kind of tough to do

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Hang on, now. I gave you historical data contradicting your claim that the "apocrypha" were not considered Scripture until Trent. You replied with a bald assertion. Argue in good faith, please, and back up your historical claims with facts, not assertions.

It was not formally canonized until Trent! What many considered is irrelevant. If it was not canonized as itr was not- it still remained part of the pseudopigrapha!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This doesn't respond to the point. No argument here that God used men to choose the books that would constitute Scripture. The issue is, which books?

As a Catholic, that's easy for me to answer - the books the Church identified, which it has the authority to decide, authority given to it by God.

As a Protestant who adheres to "sola" Scriptura, you have to rely on the text itself to tell you which books. But nowhere does the text give you a full list of the books that qualify as Scripture. You have to rely on some extrinsic authority to resolve that point. So "sola Scriptura" collapses in on itself. Again, it is a logical contradiction.

And to the extent your answer is "God decided" the 66 books, that's a non-answer. We say the same thing - "God decided" the 73 books. The issue is not that God decided - it's how to discern what God decided (and who gets to decide *that* question).

Well as the Apocrypha was not formally canonized until Trent it was not "Scripture" but part of the pseudopigrapha.

There are many letters that didn't make the cut. The 27 books we call the New Testament were canonized by the council of Hippo in 393.
The council of Jamnia affirmed the 39 OT books
The apocrypha was not canonized until Trent in 1546 which occurred during the Catholic counter reformation.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

when you defend the blessed virgin, you're defending your mother

She ain't my momma and outside of the Lord using her for Jesus to have a physical body, she has nothing to do with true salvation.

She has much to do with fake salvation, and those following mary will learn this the hard way.

All they had to do is go by the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles in the written Word of God, but no.... some folks like them some extra biblical teaching that does not come from the Lord and they will regret doing so for all of eternity

 

[GodsGrace]

What did Calvin teach that Jesus didn't teach????? answer NOTHING!!!! please don't make foolish comments without any basis apart from your emotional instability.

Let's find out what Calvin taught that Jesus DID NOT teach:


1. TOTAL DEPRAVITY.....claims man is unable to seek God.
The bible does not agree.


Acts 17:27
27That they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him.

Isaiah 55:6
6“Seek the Lord while he may be found;

Jeremiah 29:13
13You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Hebrews 11:6
6And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God...


James 4:8
8Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.



2. UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION....God chooses who will be saved based ON NOTHING.
The bible does not agree:


John 3:16
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.


Romans 10:17
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.


Romans 10:9
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;


Acts 16:31
31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,



3. LIMITED ATONEMENT....teaches that Jesus died ONLY for the "elect".
The bible does not agree:


1 John 2:2
2He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.


Hebrews 2:9
9But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.


1 Timothy 2:6
6Who gave himself as a ransom for all,


2 Corinthians 5:14
14For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all,


1 John 4:14
14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.



4. IRRESISTIBLE GRACE....teaches that God's grace cannot be resisted.
The bible does not agree:


Matthew 23:37
37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling *.



Acts 7:51
51 "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.


Romans 10:21
21 But as for Israel He says, "ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE."


Ephesians 4:30
30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.



5. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS....teaches that those that God has chosen cannot lose their salvation.
The bible does not agree.


Hebrews 10:26
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,


1 Corinthians 9:27
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.


Colossians 1:22-23
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach -
23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard,


2 Peter 2:20-22
20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.
22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."



The bible does not agree with any belief presented in TULIP.

 

[GodsGrace]

I understand.

It's just, well, let me put it this way--how Scott Hahn concludes in Hail Holy Queen is a good reminder for us all: "when you defend the Blessed Virgin, you're defending your mother, not a quarterback, not a goal line. You should defend her only as she would want to be defended."

I've tried to tell this to Bread several times.
I don't find this attitude to be helpful for the CC.
I DO wish he would change, but he's probably very frustrated after many years of this
and is unable to do so.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Well, as the authorities I have read, no "kai" is needed to follow Mary the wife of Cleophas.
And "sister" means sister. Not cousin, relative, fellow country men or just a person, the context does not allow it.

Not sure your "authorities," but your view is inconsistent with the grammar in the immediate context. Perhaps don't mock as contrary to "grammar" a view that makes better sense of it than your own.

As for following Romanism, Why should we when they went so far astray from Sripture.

Perpetual virginity
Mary never sinning
Purgatory
Limbo
eating meat on Fridays is a mortal sin
celibacy
Vain repititious prayer.

all believers are part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. but we are not part of the Catholic sect.

I mean, we could go down the line on each of these points, again. But your bare assertions as to what is "astray" from Scripture are both wrong and unhelpful.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Well the book of Tobit was not written by the 72. It is considered written in the fist century BC while the Septuagint was considered written in the 3rd century. 200 years brough the word anepsios

I don't mean to be rude, but to be blunt: do you have facts to support your responses before you assert them, or do you make things up? Seems like you just made up an etymology for "anepsios" without any grounds for it.

For instance, Numbers 36:11, LXX:

καὶ ἐγένοντο Θερσα καὶ Εγλα καὶ Μελχα καὶ Νουα καὶ Μααλα θυγατέρες Σαλπααδ τοῖς ἀνεψιοῖς αὐτῶν

The daughters of Zelophehad married "their cousins" (ἀνεψιοῖς). So again, where do you get that the LXX translators did not have a word for cousin that they could have used (but did not) in many places where instead they used "brothers" to speak of more distant kin?

At the House of Raguel.
1When they entered Ecbatana, Tobiah said, “Brother Azariah, bring me straight to the house of our kinsman Raguel.” So he did, and they came to the house of Raguel, whom they found seated by his courtyard gate. They greeted him first, and he answered, “Many greetings to you, brothers! Welcome! You have come in peace! Now enter in peace!” And he brought them into his house.
2He said to his wife Edna, “How this young man resembles Tobit, the son of my uncle!”
3So Edna asked them, saying, “Where are you from, brothers?” They answered, “We are descendants of Naphtali, now captives in Nineveh.”
4She said to them, “Do you know our kinsman Tobit?” They answered her, “Indeed, we do know him!” She asked, “Is he well?”
5They answered, “Yes, he is alive and well.” Then Tobiah said, “He is my father!”

Well you have a problem then.

For to Raguel Tobit is both brother and cousin! Kind of tough to do

This response is incoherent. The point is that, in semantic usage in Koine of the period, "brother" and "cousin" could be used interchangeably about the same kin, contradicting your supposition that these terms have no semantic overlap. And going further, "brother" here speaks of a "cousin," undermining the claim that the NT authors could not have used "brother" to speak of more distant kin, such as a cousin.

When you consider that with all the evidence from the LXX of "brother" being used for cousin or other more distant kin, and the heavy influence the LXX had on the NT authors, the case that this is how the NT authors used the term in the gospels for Jesus's kin grows stronger still.

And then when you consider that the view of the Church Fathers and Church generally from the beginning--many of whom were immersed in the language natively, unlike you or I--was that "brothers" did not speak of biological siblings (except for identifiable outliers like Tertullian after he had become a Montanist [I'd need to double check but am 95% sure] and Helvidius), the case becomes stronger still.

Against all this is a reading of "brothers" that did not gain traction until *after* the Reformation (as others noted, the lead reformers themselves held to the perpetual virginity, as did even later protestants like Wesley), more than fifteen centuries removed from the text in its historical and cultural context.

Even setting aside the authoritative interpretation of the Church, its interpretation makes better sense of the data.