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.
Now Jesus could not have been "just an angel" because of John 1 - "In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God."
The term “indifferently” means just what I said, with interchangeability, like six and half a dozen.
“Now Jesus could not have been “just an angel” because of John 1 - “In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God.”
Now that we have established that Jesus was not “just an angel” perhaps you can analyze the rest of John 1:1,2.
God is used three times in these two verses, can you identify who is being spoken about from these verses?
That's not correct -- John 10:30 I and my Father are one and "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." -John 1:1
And "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." John 1:5 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
and 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
===========
but thank you for sharing your opinion on this.
Because the Word was God.
It would be useful if I understood who you understand the term “God” in the three cases in John 1:1,2 is speaking about. “God from God” isn't found there.
“Because the Word was God.”
Then the Word was “the Godhead”?
“just a man” is not how anyone should describe Jesus. That would trivialize him, I think.
Jesus as just a man does not work, Jesus as a created angelic being, a semi-divine being does not work either.
MHG's post 231 explains it better that
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.
Synonymous terms - the Godhead is God the Father-Son-Holy Spirit. Jesus is who we read of in John 1 -- the Word WAS God. in John 1:2-3 God is One, the Word is God, the Word was with God. The only way you can reconcile those three sentences is in the Triune nature of God
Jesus as just a man does not work, Jesus as a created angelic being, a semi-divine being does not work either.
MHG's post 231 explains it better that
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.
“In the beginning the Father/Son/Holy Spirit was and the Father/Son/Holy Spirit was with Father/Son/Holy Spirit and the Father/Son/Holy Spirit was Father/Son/Holy Spirit.”
Remember...you said the terms were synonymous and that word indicates alike in meaning.
On the other hand, the Scriptures says Jesus called his father “my God” at John 20:17. Was Jesus talking about himself as “my God”? Was Jesus referring to the “Godhead..Father/Son/Holy Spirit” as “my God”?
“The only way you can reconcile those three sentences is in the Triune nature of God”.
But it cannot be reconciled with Scripture and that is the point. And saying that the Word was Father/Son/Holy Spirit cannot be found in John's words.
cronos: Synonymous terms - the Godhead is God the Father-Son-Holy Spirit.
cyc: If Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Word are as you said, “synoymous terms”
hold on there -- read this, I never said that the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are synonomous terms, neither did I say that any of these were synonomous terms with the Word.
Jesus Christ is the Word of God -- and as clearly stated in John 1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.
a simple argument to understand why we edify one another rather than argue.
When we are in fellowship with Him, He performs the work and our will is part of the body, humble to His Will, thereby fulfilling His Plan.
Joh 6:28-29
(28) Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
(29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
There is One God, not three, here is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
To say Jesus Christ is not God cannot be reconciled with scripture -- He was either God or a demonic faker, nothing in-between.
So, who do you say Jesus was if not God? who else could He be?
cronos: -- so we agree on that bit at least, right? That Jesus was more than just a man and not "just an angel", correct? I believe He was God. You have said you don't, now we can discuss this difference in opinion
Just for the point of clarification, for the sake of the lurkers who don't know the players, could you kindly point out to everyone just where c-y-c made the statement that he said that he didn't believe Jesus was God? I went back through the posted conversation that you two had and didn't see that in there.
Or is that just another unsubstantiated claim thrown out there in an effort to discredit anything else he has to say?
Because you know, that's how it all comes across. Spurious claims based on delusion of some kind are thrown out about various posters, Catholic in general, about the purported beliefs of non-Catholics and then the implication is made that nothing they have to say about God or Christ or the Bible is trustworthy because if they can't get the basics correct, then everything else they say must be suspect. It's extremely disingenuous.
IBTWH.
There is only ONE YHvH, Peter told us that Yah'shua said so in Mark 12:29. (see Deu 6:4)
It is closest to Sabellianism
Clear reading of the Tanach 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.
Yah'shua NAME means "YHvH is/be my salvation"
See Numbers 13:16 Where Moses changes the son on nun's name from Salvation to YHvH is Salvation
So far we seem to be in agreement, as there's not really any thing to dispute yet, but then you added the reference to the Holy Spirit in Psalms and Isaiah which seemed to indicate that the Holy Spirit is not an individual but rather the breath of YHVH.
If that's so, then how could Paul write in Ephesians 4:30 that we are not to grieve the Holy Spirit? You can grieve a person, but not a thing, so Paul seems to be teaching that the Holy Spirit is a person. Furthermore, Jesus Himself spoke in John 14:16 of the Holy Spirit as an eternal Helper and not just as the breath of YHVH.
Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 12:11, Paul notes that the fruits of the Spirit are given to each Believer according to the will of the Holy Spirit. How can the breath of YHVH have an independent will, such as the text of that passage indicates?
Please don't see this as an antagonistic post, that's not the spirit in which I write this, but I can't see how the stance you're taking is correct. If there's something else that I'm missing, point it out to me but please understand that I don't accept doctrinal authority outside of the Scriptures. Church doctrine, Roman or otherwise, doesn't have any authority unless it has Holy Scripture to back it up.
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.