The Perpetual Temptation of Joseph?

A Refutation of the Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Perpetual Sinlessness of Mary

The whore of Babylon is continually adding contradiction upon contradiction to her irrational system of religion, yet she seems to be so consumed with herself that she cannot recognize that her doctrines are absurd. For instance, if infallible Scripture can only be understood by an infallible body of interpreters, since everyone else is fallible, then would this not require another infallible body of interpreters to infallibly interpret the infallible interpretations of Scripture given by the first infallible body of men? And would not this infallible body of interpreters require yet another, and another, and another, and another, and another…? This infinite regress is enough to show that the speculative grounds that Romanists present for the existence of an infallible magisterium are not only blasphemous, they are irrational. Add to this the “infallible” Papal encyclicals, which also would require an infinite regress of infallible interpreters. If Christ is the Logos/Reason/Wisdom/Logic of God, then it follows that Romanism is false, purely on this basis: Her foundational claims are both blasphemous and irrational. To add another to this list, we will address the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The doctrine seems to pay honor to Mary but really it condemns Mary as a sinner. For if all married women are obligated to engage in sexual intercourse with their husbands under penalty of God’s punishment/discipline for their sin (cf. 1 Cor 7:2-5), and if Mary was married to Joseph, then Mary was obligated to be sexually intimate with Joseph under penalty of punishment/discipline for her sin of remaining a virgin, which is a clear contradiction of the Scriptural command to wives. Furthermore, if perpetual virginity in the context of marriage is a sin, which it is, then Mary could only remain a virgin if she ceased to be sinless by choosing to remain a virgin throughout the course of her marriage to Joseph. In addition to this, if perpetual virginity within the context of marriage is a sin, which it is, and Mary desired to remain a perpetual virgin, then Mary could not have been “free from all taint and stain of original sin, ” as the Romanists emptily assert. Therefore, if Mary remained a perpetual virgin, then Mary could not have been (a.)immaculately conceived and (b.)remained sinless.

A possible objection to this clear proof of the absurdity of the Romanist doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary as well as the immaculate conception of Mary may take the following form: “Mary and Joseph loved each other, so they wanted only to serve one another. This being so, Joseph acquiesced to Mary’s desire to remain a perpetual virgin. After all, the command for husbands and wives to be sexually intimate doesn’t apply to Mary if she was, indeed, conceived without sin.” This is a pitiful objection, but we shall address it nonetheless, since folly is hard to eradicate in these enemies of the Lord Jesus. We, then, move on and refute the objection by simply reminding Christ’s enemies about what the Word of God clearly teaches. If Christ was born without sin and yet could be tempted in every way as we are, then the commandment applies to Mary. Therefore, even if we grant that Mary was sinless, we must conclude that in order for her to remain sinless she had to be sexually intimate with Joseph, since the command is given to married couples in order for them to not be tempted by Satan.

However, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Mary was born without sin, without desire to sin, and without the ability to sin. Let us further suppose that Mary could not be tempted by sexual sin. Even if we grant all of the above stated premises, it nonetheless remains the fact that Joseph was not immaculately conceived. Therefore, if Mary did not enter into sexual relations with Joseph, then she was in violation of the Law of God in the following respects: (i.)she would be autocratically deciding on matters she has no right to decide upon seeing as Joseph was her head and her body was under his authority (as his body was under hers), (ii.)she would be subjecting Joseph to perpetual sexual temptation, knowing to do good and yet not doing it and, thereby, sinning.[1]


[1] James 4:17

Advertisements

One thought on “The Perpetual Temptation of Joseph?

involve yourself

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s