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.
Really? Thanks for the correction — would it be correct to say that for Lutherans Baptism and the Eucharist are Sacraments? And Holy Absolution, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders are non-sacramental but still rites?
I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you can repent of this evil, arrogant, hard heart before your time is up on this world. There's no purgatory after death, so repent while you still can. As a tree falls, so shall it lay. Get your heart right with God before it's too late Judith Anne.
And Judith if I may say is an example of how the hardening happens on either side. last year she was one of the voices of reason, talking of her joys in the Lord in little ways. But then we had one of our multi-color font friends posting pictures of donkeys laughing, of stern women, and posts saying basically “shut up, you fool”.
You ate not mu teligious authority. Repent yourself, sinner.
What does faith and spirituality have to do with “intellectual”? That’s just overthinking it. Some things are far more simple. Yet, we, as humans overanalyze everything to pieces.
It’s an open forum so I respond when I feel I have something to add or I refrain as I wish. And since you addressed #165 to me why do say I “jumped into a conversation”? Even though that is what open forums promote?
Sure you can ask. But then reasonably I should be allowed to ask, and get an answer, a question of you. Fair enough?
Some parts of the Nicene Creed I can agree with, God is the Almighty Father, Creator of all things, Jesus is His only begotten son, sent to earth as a redeemer, sacrifice, died, resurrected, returned to heaven. And in the holy ghost or spirit, also.
This I can find in God's Word and thus have a basis for believing that I can accept.
So my question (not difficult or complicated) to you is:
Who did Stephen say appeared to Moses at the burning bush?
Yes
And Holy Absolution, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders are non-sacramental but still rites?
Absolution is a sacrament because of the visible element and than God's grace is imparted. The others are rites, but I am unfamilair with your understanding of what Holy Orders encompasses so I'd have to be conditional on that point.
And just what about the words of Jesus in the Gospels, you know, the ones that that Catholics hold above everything else????
The same Jesus who said ....
Matthew 25 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Also said these words....
Matthew 5:3-9 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
and .......
Matthew 5:38-42 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
So what is this? YOPIOS or deciding that you exempt from certain of Jesus' teachings or that they don't apply to you?
If you are a Christian as you claim, who gave you permission to retaliate?
Okay, color me confused here Uri. I thought that Messianics believed that God the Father and God the Son were one and the same. I also thought that they believed that the Holy Spirit was God as well.
How does the MJ view of God differ from the traditional view of the Trinity? The Trinity isn't three Gods, as I've seen some argue, it's one God in three Persons.
What am I missing here?
There is only ONE YHvH, Peter It is closest to Sabellianism Clear reading of the Tanach Yah'shua NAME means "YHvH is/be my salvation" See Numbers 13:16 Where Moses changes the son on nun's Also see Holy Spirit I prefer to take my understanding from, YHvH's WORD The terms Father and Son as seen as Metaphors. YHvH appeared in the Tanach as a Many use the term Tri-unity.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
told us that Yah'shua said so
in Mark 12:29. (see Deu 6:4)
Gen. 49:18; Exod. 14:13; 15:2; 1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:47; 1 Chr. 16:23; 2 Chr. 6:41; 20:17; Ps. 3:8; 14:7; 18:2, 46; 21:1; 24:5; 27:1; 35:9; 37:39; 38:22; 40:16; 68:19; 85:7; 88:1; 95:1; 96:2; 98:2; 106:4; 116:13; 118:14f; 119:41, 166, 174; 140:7; 149:4; Isa. 12:2; 25:9; 33:2, 6; 45:8, 17; 49:8; 52:10; 56:1; 61:10; 62:11; Jer. 3:23; Lam. 3:26; Jon. 2:9; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:8, 18
YHvH is my salvation.
name from Salvation to YHvH is Salvation
Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10 - 11
and not from Roman DOGMA.
theophany, an angel of YHvH, Shekhinah.
So He has appeared in many modes.
The following will be 'a way' to understand the notion of the trinitarian nature of the Deity, not a strictly Biblical explanation, but one which is applicable to the teaching of the Bible. Here goes:
God The Father Almighty is greater than His creation, thus greater than dimension time and dimension space, thus we may think of The Father Almighty as beyond time and space but not prevented from touching and indeed penetrating His creation.
The universe of space and time is likened to a bubble: what is inside the bubble is in time and space. But the nature of what is inside the bubble is only partially understood in modern Physics.
The Bible relates scenes which defy the simplistic notions we use for assumptive science. We'll get to that 'assumptive' notion shortly, but let us make the statement that God The Father Almighty is as comfortable outside the bubble as He is inside the bubble.
Modern Physics has discovered that the balance of forces and tensions sustaining the universe necessary for human life to arise within the universe is extremely delicate, on the order of a mathematical improbability, represented as a 'one in less than' fraction so tiny that a one over a one followed by more than one-hundred zeros defines the probability that the whole thing remains in balance! Such a delicate balancing act is but one of the continuing 'works' of the Holy Spirit of God. It is by the Spirit of God, The Word, that the universe came into existence and it is said in the Bible that by His Spirit the whole is maintained.
But the Bible also states that The Word was with God in the beginning and was God. In John's gospel we find that Jesus is The Word made flesh Who dwelt among us. So, inside the bubble Created by The Father Almighty, sustained by God The Holy Spirit, is the Word, God made flesh Who dwelt among us. The Creator does not stop being greater than His creation bubble, nor does His Spirit cease to sustain it all in balance, when Jesus comes in the flesh to dwell among us.
Here's an address to 'assumptive science limitations': Now, when one reads the Tanakh/Old Testament, one finds scenes like the fifth chapter of Daniel where a being is in one spacetime 'where/when' reaching into another 'where/when' to write on the palace party central wall of king Belshazzar. Just the forearm/hand is seen in the where/when of Belshazzar and the party folks, the rest of the being remains in 'another' where/when.
God The Father Almighty created this 'other' where/when, His Holy Spirit maintains its balance and separateness from our where/when, and Jesus has moved in and out of this other where/when: as shown when He resurrected from the tomb without rolling away the stone, just passing out of the tomb where/when, into 'another' where/when; then back into our where/when as He spoke to the women come to the sepulchre; and when He appeared in a locked and shuttered room with the disciples present; or appeared suddenly with the disciples walking on a road and broke bread with them then left our where/when to go to the 'other' where/when.
The trinitarian nature of God is shown in the Bible, even in the Tanakh. Trinity IS the nature of God as we have been given to know. Even in the Old Testament/Tanakh, we do have instruction on the Three nature of God as Creator, Sustainer, and Deliverer. God Is manifested as three yet one, seen identified by 'the work He is doing'.
With each manifestation, we are given to realize His presence simultaneously as Creator--because we exist in the realm He created, as Sustainer--because the balance is too delicate to stand alone without His sustaining the separation and interdependence, and as God with us in the person of Jesus our Lord and Savior.
That actually makes more sense than almost all of the other explanations I’ve ever heard.
If you are Christian as you haven't claimed, who gave you the permission to cast the first stone then?
All I state is that I am not Catholic any more.
*Catholic* does not necessarily equate to *Christian* and *Christian* does not necessarily equate to *Catholic*. The two terms are not necessarily synonymous nor interchangeable.
Pretty weak red herring though.
Good point. Do you believe in the second part of the creed that states that "We believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ... God from God."? If not, then citing Acts 7 as just the reason for Jesus being Archangel Michael don't gel.
So I turn the same question to you — “what about the words of Jesus in the Gospels” — why the focus more on the mote in our eyes rather than the plank in yours?
The NAB in a footnote on Ex. 3:2 says that the term used by the translators, “angel of the Lord” was used elsewhere, “referred to indifferently in some Old Testament texts either as God's angel or as God himself”.
So “angel of the Lord” is simply another way of saying angel. The wording is not important to the meaning and is without distinction from other mentions of angels.
What these verses do show is that a representative of someone could speak in the first person as though they were that person and in footnotes on Genesis the NAB makes exactly that point.
The Scriptures do not use the term “God from God” and if we analyze the phrase it cannot be reconciled to the Scriptures. so I can't believe it.
Among those outside orthodoxy, one cannot call, a Mormon a Christian, but a believing, traditional Presbyterian/Anglican/Lutheran/Methodist IS a Christian by the stnadards you put. Among those who are Baptists, those who believe in the fullness of faith, Our Trinitarian God, these are Christians by the stnadards you put -- SBC etc., but the Westboro "Baptists"?
similarly one would have doubts about some but definitely not all who call themselves pentecostals -- by the stnadards you put.
Now what are those standards? The tenets of the Nicene Creed are a good baseline.
Mormons would baulk at the first "We believe in ONE God", Jehovah's Witnesses would baulk at "We Believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ.. God from God,.." -- now both of these have the right to their own faith system, but they are not what would be called Christian, correct?
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.