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.
As for your claim that Uri's group denies the Virgin Birth, where has this been claimed? I've not heard this at all.
Until Cronos can provide some solid evidence of these things that he's stating about us, it's all tilting at windmills.
Making baseless blanket statements about people based on nothing but conjecture is not debate with any kind of honesty or integrity.
My posting history is there for all to see and my position on every topic he's accused me of can be found there.
Cronos, if you can point me or anyone else to specific posts that we have made that would lead you to arrive at the *your group* kind of conclusions you keep throwing out at me and others, post them and I'll address mine specifically.
But I am not and will not engage in stupid gotcha games whose sole purpose seems to be nothing other than finding out personal information about other FReepers or providing ANYONE with the opportunity to pass judgment on the validity of my faith because it doesn't match someone else's opinion.
If you're going to base your questioning on presumptions and expect me to disprove them or concede to them, you will be having a long wait.
My refusal to engage means nothing more than the fact that I recognize bating and manipulation tactics and will not be baited or manipulated.
Matthew 5:11-12 11 "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
The Pharisees falsely accused Jesus as well. I can wear it as a badge of honor to be keeping His company.
So, Cronos, bug off.
I will not answer any question that presumes a position I hold.
I do not recall asking any Catholic about their faith. I was born and raised a Catholic. I know all I need to about it.
Perversely and unnecessarily sowing discord amongst the Brothers and Sisters is harshly condemned in Scripture.
LOL Some haven’t gotten that message. See post 20 to me. It’s their way to “fit into the little boxes” which seems to make them feel better. It’s a way to apply indiscretions of anyone one person of that “organization” to other individuals.
They can’t really understand that salvation isn’t contingent on “belonging” to some human organized “religion”. Cults indoctrinate into the adherents the claim that if they don’t follow “their rules” they will be damned. Belonging to the “group” is salvation in and of itself. It’s one of the more obvious signs of a true cult.
Very well said! It is the idea that "absolutes" really exist that burns their buns. God laughs in derision at them.
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
Metmom frequently pings an entire group to her posts. How is it that we cannot address the group? Metmom has a convenient shorthand for Catholics, and will not identify a denomination she belongs to, but often uses “Catholics” as a group and states what she thinks they believe, whether it’s true or not.
How is this fair?
If metmom pings a group, why may Catholics not address the group she pings, as a group?
If she were referring to the beliefs of the Freepers you ping as “Judith Anne’s group” I’d also tell her to stop it. It is “making it personal.” It will lead to flame wars.
Absolutely! Atheists relish the chance to chip away at Christianity. The Virgin Birth is only one of many in a line that they will use to accomplish the destruction. The reason should be obvious that if they can get someone to doubt even one small part, they can use it as a toehold to gouge at the bigger parts. Cause a little doubt and the rest is not far behind. I refuse to fall for the game and I trust that God is who is behind Holy Scripture. If he said it, that settles it for me. “God is not a man that he should lie.”
As though “flame wars” were a novelty on the Religion Forum!
“Judith Anne’s group” is well known to be Catholic posters. She has no need to address my “group” all metmom has to do is say “Catholics.” She even posts directly to me, and references “Catholics” to avoid making it personal.
And Freepers should not be subjected to badgering on the Religion Forum to uncover their beliefs. If they want to testify, they will.
Your position is clear.
When metmom does it, no problem. When a Catholic does it, that’s different.
Then why do you ask questions of others then? If a person demands questions of others and never talks about their own faith, well, hypocritical is the word that comes to mind.
So, if that person instead of talking about their faith instead says "bug off", that tells everyone a lot about what they actually believe....
I’ve said a lot about what I believe so your statement is untrue.
Read my posting history.
It’s all there.
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.