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.
“Assume the worse if you will. It will happen anyway, no matter what I say.” — though if some group is exceptionally cagey about what they believe or not — not even explaining why they deny the virgin birth, what can one do?
Valid question -- I've interacted with XeniaST for years and that is where that statement comes from.
As to his statement that "Yah'shua clearly stated that there is only ONE G-d: YHvH. see Mark 12:29, where Peter is quoting Yah'shua." -- and that "YHvH has appeared to mankind at various times in different modes." --> I stand corrected -- XeniaST does believe in the Unity in Trinity, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Shalom
As to his statement that "Yah'shua clearly stated that there is only ONE G-d: YHvH. see Mark 12:29, where Peter is quoting Yah'shua." -- and that "YHvH has appeared to mankind at various times in different modes." --> I stand corrected -- XeniaST does believe in the Unity in Trinity, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Maybe I'm missing something here, but you seem to be equating Uri with this XeniaST person. Who is this XeniaST person that they can speak for Uri's group's beliefs? I don't quite follow where you're going here.
Thanks, Buggs. I thought I would have heard of it, if it were the case. Someone probably miscommunicated and another misunderstood it.
Shalom
Here it is Christams week and the celebration of Jesus birth, our Savior coming to the world... yet they still cannot see Him as first and foremost....
BUT.....It remains all about....”The son is given”...”The Savior”...”THe King”.....and He shall be called “Jesus”...to those who love and serve Him above all others.
Praise God for His great love to us all.. that HE would come to dwell among men in the form of the Christ-child!!!!
The Old Testament declared......”He’s coming!”.....the Gospels declared....’He’s here!’.... and the rest reveal... “He’s coming again!”
That and anything else that came out of Africa...
Yes some do...Some like that guy that wears a hat that looks like a grapefruit while wearing a dress and red shoes, kissing a green Koran...Some folks like him apparently believe in the Koran...
Was that any one you know???
|
Gospel
|
Luke 1:26-38 © |
|---|
Maybe I’m a bit slow here but the LXX has been/is quite a useful work to Christians and Jews.
You continue to put words in my mouth. I do not now nor have I ever believed in the That heresy was promulgated by the Wrong again !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Roman Pagan DOGMA of the trinity !
Roman Pontiff, Constantine in 325CE.
Ok, then my mistake, let’s rephrase it: XeniaST (now with a new screen tag Uri’el-2012) does not believe in the Trinity and in fact Uri/Xenia believes that the Trinity (which Christians believe in) is pagan — correct?
A reliable source agrees with you:
(Matthew 19:26) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible".
My apologies Avalon, XeniaST was Uri’el-2012’s screen name for nearly a decade before 2010. He changed it to Uri’el-2012. Not sure why, perhaps something to do with 2012 end times or something.
Not really, I made the error of taking one person’s views and comments as representative of all — I apologize for that error.
I believe that since the Catholics have been told to lay off the direct questioning of people concerning their religious affiliation, that they have resorted to finding the information by process of elimination. Throw out some absurd claim and then make them deny it.
What’s going on is that the Catholics are then setting themselves up as judge and jury, passing judgment on who’s a *real* Christian based on some arbitrary criteria they established, such as whether you agree with their man-made precepts and doctrines or not.
Anyone they go after is then being constantly put on the defensive to *prove* the validity of their Christianity to someone who will never be satisfied with any answer given but complete compliance and embracing of THEIR CHURCH and its doctrine.
So I’m going to participate in providing information to an unbeliever so they can pass judgment on the validity of my faith by their measure? I don’t think so.
He’s working on assumptions and you know what happens when one assumes something......
Except UriÂ’el-2012 and I are exempt. It’s just self-inflicted at that point.
And I’m not playing his stupid little gotcha games.
No gotcha games — just a question — why believe that? you ask me and other in orthodoxy about our faith, so why can’t we ask you about yours?
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.