Posted on 12/19/2011 4:02:26 PM PST by rhema
In one of his columns for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof once pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are “less intellectual.” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin Birth really necessary?
Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time,” he explains, and the percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth “actually rose five points in the latest poll.” Yikes! Is this evidence of secular backsliding?
“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith,” Kristof argues, “because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth … as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith.” Here’s a little hint: Anytime you hear a claim about what “most Biblical scholars” believe, check on just who these illustrious scholars really are. In Kristof’s case, he is only concerned about liberal scholars like Hans Kung, whose credentials as a Catholic theologian were revoked by the Vatican.
The list of what Hans Kung does not believe would fill a book [just look at his books!], and citing him as an authority in this area betrays Kristof’s determination to stack the evidence, or his utter ignorance that many theologians and biblical scholars vehemently disagree with Kung. Kung is the anti-Catholic’s favorite Catholic, and that is the real reason he is so loved by the liberal media.
Kristof also cites “the great Yale historian and theologian” Jaroslav Pelikan as an authority against the Virgin Birth, but this is both unfair and untenable. In Mary Through the Centuries, Pelikan does not reject the Virgin Birth, but does trace the development of the doctrine.
What are we to do with the Virgin Birth? The doctrine was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be elective. The Apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the liberal critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue that the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.
Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the Virgin Birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not really important.
Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.
Nicholas Kristof pointed to his grandfather as a “devout” Presbyterian elder who believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” Follow his example, Kristof encourages, and join the modern age. But we must face the hard fact that Kristof’s grandfather denied the faith. This is a very strange and perverse definition of “devout.”
Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” [Matthew 1:18] This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’.” [Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14]
Luke provides even greater detail, revealing that Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God.” [Luke 1:35]
Even if the Virgin Birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the relative truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.
Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”
Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.
Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argued that the Virgin Birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.
Nicholas Kristof and his secularist friends may find belief in the Virgin Birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the Church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true Church throughout the ages. Kristof’s grandfather, we are told, believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” The fact that he could hold such beliefs and serve as an elder in his church is evidence of that church’s doctrinal and spiritual laxity — or worse. Those who deny the Virgin Birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.
This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.
Also what helps the Jewish/Christian scriptures is what is called “Biblical archeology” in Israel.
I do believe what helped the Bible cause was this one Israeli who has become a “legend” in the field of Bible Archaeology, Yigael Yadin. Here is an article about this writer’s friendship with Mr. Yadin:
Baiting if I’ve ever seen it.
Working on the presumption of guilt or knowledge of a position held is intellectually dishonest debate tactic and only amounts to flame baiting.
Because this is not an unrecognized tactic from Catholics, I’m not going there. Until there is some integrity in the questions asked, they will remain unanswered.
Assume the worse if you will. It will happen anyway, no matter what I say.
Man, that was a work of beauty. Apparently that’s what passes for religious discussion; assuming of course one is either horribly ashamed of their own religion’s stance on a subject, or just too plain ignorant to be able to explain it.
You know, I was under the mistaken idea that all those recent translations were done ‘without any monkey business’. Yet, I have had it demonstrated that that is not so.
Granted, at first the KJV may be a bit difficult to understand. I liken it to when I was in high school and had to read Shakespeares Othello. Boy, was THAT hard to undertsand. At first. But as ones mind begins to wrap itself around that different way of thinking/speaking, it becomes easier and more understandable.
The same is true for the KJV. Indeed, once one becomes accustomed to the language, it can be quite beautiful.
Additionally, one should look at the groups, the very people involved in these nice new ‘translations’. In many cases, they are not ones that should be involved in a Faithful translation of Gods Word.
Perhaps a better "phraseology" for the question might have been, "Do we have the choice to believe in the virgin birth or not?"
That’s because Jesus IS The Word:
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. [9] That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
[11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not. [12] But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. [13] Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. [15] John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me.
They aren't...They don't exist...
Not your bible...
Unitariarns definitely are not Christian.
I’m disappointed in Messianics if they reject the Virgin Birth. This is the first I’ve heard of this.
Yes. It’s called “Faith”
Messianics do not reject the Virgin Birth; Miriam's role was not her 2. Joseph is descended from King David. 3. The inheritance exception granted for 4. If a woman who has no brothers marries 5. Joseph and Miriam are married As we speak, in Israel they are lighting the first candle for Chanukah. Careful reading of YHvH's WORD if illuminated by the Ru'ach HaKodesh Yah'shua was born on the YHvH commanded feast of Tabernacles. One might want to become more skeptical of members of the Roman "church" All Praise for the Light of the worldThere are some who are just making stuff up !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
they are the only ones who have clearly explained
from scripture the purpose of the virgin birth
that does not include the Queen of Heaven.
characteristics or value,
but her bloodlines to King David,
having no brothers and
the exception started by
the daughters of Zelophehad.
There are five things that are important here: 1. Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers
Some members of the Roman "church" are acting on orders
and is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.
the daughters of Zelophehad
(These were daughters who had no brothers)
is in effect SEE: (Numbers 26, 27, 36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7).
a man of the same tribe
She can inherit forever.
(each descended from King David)
thus providing Miriam with permanent
inheritance of the Kingship of David
for her to pass on to her son Yah'shua (Messiahship).
from their god haSatan in an attempt to discredit all who
disagree with Constantine's Roman "church"
will demonstrate the on this Feast the Light of the world
took on the garment of human flesh as the Lamb of G-d
on the first day of Chanukah.
as we enter endtimes as there seems to be a one world religion movement.
entering to tabernacle with us and redeem us.
Metmom: baiting
Really? On what basis does this sect say that the Virgin Birth was false?
Wait a minute,Uri — your posts in the past have denied Christ’s divinity. Is that taken back? btw, xzins, I don’t know if Uri represents all Messianics or their philosophy.
It's incredible -- if they can only attack other's faith rather than talking about their own it says a lot....
Salvation - some believe in the Koran instead....
Perhaps you just want to play " you and him fight !" I have NEVER denied the divinity of Yah'shua ! I reject the Roman "church" DOGMA of the Trinity. YHvH has appeared to mankind at various times in different modes. Yah'shua clearly stated that there is only ONE G-d: YHvH. YHvH's NAME has been blotted out over seven thousand times I can not tell if you are functionally illiterate or
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
see and believe only what you want to believe.
Theophanies, the Spirit of YHvH, Shekinah.
see Mark 12:29, where Peter is quoting Yah'shua.
in all English translations and replaced with "LORD".
Cronos, I've got to stop you here. I can't answer directly for metmom, but I do know that in most areas the two of us agree on Biblical topics and I've never heard her reject the Virgin Birth, nor do I know of any other Protestants which do reject the Virgin Birth. That's one of the fundamentals of the Faith which all branches of Christianity agree upon.
As for your claim that Uri's group denies the Virgin Birth, where has this been claimed? I've not heard this at all.
Please, explain yourself here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.