Posted on 12/23/2008 5:35:06 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? This question would perplex the vast majority of Christians throughout the centuries, but modern denials of biblical truth make the question tragically significant. Of all biblical doctrines, the doctrine of Christ's virginal conception has often been the specific target of modern denial and attack.
Attacks upon the virgin birth emerged in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, with some theologians attempting to harmonize the anti-supernaturalism of the modern mind with the church's teaching about Christ. The great quest of liberal theology has been to invent a Jesus who is stripped of all supernatural power, deity, and authority. The fountainhead of this quest includes figures such as Albert Schweitzer and Rudolf Bultmann. Often considered the most influential New Testament scholar of the twentieth century, Bultmann argued that the New Testament presents a mythological worldview that modern men and women simply cannot accept as real. The virgin birth is simply a part of this mythological structure and Bultmann urged his program of "demythologization" in order to construct a faith liberated from miracles and all vestiges of the supernatural. Jesus was reduced to an enlightened teacher and existentialist model.
In America, the public denial of the virgin birth can be traced to the emergence of Protestant liberalism in the early 20th century. In his famous sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?," Harry Emerson Fosdick--an unabashed liberal--aimed his attention at "the vexed and mooted question of the virgin birth." Fosdick, preaching from the pulpit of the First Presbyterian Church in New York City, allowed that Christians may hold "quite different points of view about a matter like the virgin birth." He accepted the fact that many Christians believed the virgin birth to be historically true and theologically significant. Fosdick likened this belief to trust in "a special biological miracle." Nevertheless, Fosdick insisted that others, equally Christian, could disagree with those who believe the virgin birth to be historically true: "But, side by side with them in the evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the virgin birth is not to be accepted as an historic fact. To believe in the virgin birth as an explanation of great personality is one of the familiar ways in which the ancient world was accustomed to account for unusual superiority."
Fosdick explained that those who deny the virgin birth hold to a specific pattern of reasoning. As he explained, "those first disciples adored Jesus--as we do; when they thought about his coming they were sure that he came specially from God--as we are; this adoration and conviction they associated with God's special influence and intention in his birth--as we do; but they phrased it in terms of a biological miracle that our modern minds cannot use."
Thus, Fosdick divided the church into two camps. Those he labeled as "fundamentalists" believe the virgin birth to be historical fact. The other camp, comprised of "enlightened" Christians who no longer obligate themselves to believe the Bible to be true, discard this "biological" miracle but still consider themselves to be Christians.
More contemporary attacks on the virgin birth of Christ have emerged from figures such as retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong and German New Testament scholar Gerd Luedemann. Luedemann acknowledges that "most Christians in all the churches in the world confess as they recite the Apostles' Creed that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Now...modern Christians completely discount the historicity of the virgin birth and understand it in a figurative sense." Obviously, the "modern Christians" Luedemann identifies are those who allow the modern secular worldview to establish the frame for reality into which the claims of the Bible must be fitted. Those doctrines that do not fit easily within the secular frame must be automatically discarded. As might be expected, Luedemann's denial of biblical truth is not limited to the virgin birth. He denies virtually everything the Bible reveals about Jesus Christ. In summarizing his argument, Luedemann states: "The tomb was full and the manger empty." That is to say, Luedemann believes that Jesus was not born of a virgin and that He was not raised from the dead.
Another angle of attack on the virgin birth has come from the group of radical scholars who organize themselves into what is called the "Jesus Seminar." These liberal scholars apply a radical form of interpretation and deny that the New Testament is in any way reliable as a source of knowledge about Jesus. Roman Catholic scholar John Dominic Crossan, a member of the Jesus Seminar, discounts the biblical narratives about the virgin birth as invented theology. He acknowledges that Matthew explicitly traces the virgin birth to Isaiah 7:14. Crossan explains that the author of Matthew simply made this up: "Clearly, somebody went seeking in the Old Testament for a text that could be interpreted as prophesying a virginal conception, even if such was never its original meaning. Somebody had already decided on the transcendental importance of the adult Jesus and sought to retroject that significance on to the conception and birth itself."
Crossan denies that Matthew and Luke can be taken with any historical seriousness, and he understands the biblical doctrine of the virgin birth to be an insurmountable obstacle to modern people as they encounter the New Testament. As with Luedemann, Crossan's denial of the virgin birth is only a hint of what is to come. In Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Crossan presents an account of Jesus that would offend no secularist or atheist. Obviously, Crossan's vision also bears no resemblance to the New Testament.
For others, the rejection of the birth is tied to a specific ideology. In The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives, Jane Schaberg accuses the church of inventing the doctrine of the virgin birth in order to subordinate women. As she summarizes: "The charge of contemporary feminists, then, is not that the image of the Virgin Mary is unimportant or irrelevant, but that it contributes to and is integral to the oppression of women." Schaberg states that the conception of Jesus was most likely the result of extra-marital sex or rape. She chooses to emphasize the latter possibility and turns this into a feminist fantasy in which Mary is the heroine who overcomes. Schaberg offers a tragic, but instructive model of what happens when ideology trumps trust in the biblical text. Her most basic agenda is not even concerned with the question of the virgin birth of Christ, but with turning this biblical account into service for the feminist agenda.
Bishop Joseph Sprague of the United Methodist Church offers further evidence of modern heresy. In an address he presented on June 25, 2002 at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado, this bishop denied the faith wholesale. Sprague, who serves as Presiding Bishop of the United Methodist Church in northern Illinois, has been called "the most vocally prominent active liberal bishop in Protestantism today." Sprague is proud of this designation and takes it as a compliment: "I really make no apology for that. I don't consider myself a liberal. I consider myself a radical." Sprague lives up to his self-designation.
In his Illiff address, Bishop Sprague claimed that the "myth" of the virgin birth "was not intended as historical fact, but was employed by Matthew and Luke in different ways to appoint poetically the truth about Jesus as experienced in the emerging church." Sprague defined a theological myth as "not false presentation but a valid and quite persuasive literary device employed to point to ultimate truth that can only be insinuated symbolically and never depicted exhaustively." Jesus, Sprague insists, was born to human parents and did not possess "trans-human, supernatural powers."
Thus, Sprague dismisses the miracles, the exclusivity of Christ, and the bodily resurrection as well as the virgin birth. His Christology is explicitly heretical: "Jesus was not born the Christ, rather by the confluence of grace with faith, he became the Christ, God's beloved in whom God was well pleased." Bishop Sprague was charged with heresy but has twice been cleared of the charge--a clear sign that the mainline Protestant denominations are unwilling to identify as heretics even those who openly teach heresy. The presence of theologians and pastors who deny the virgin birth in the theological seminaries and pulpits of the land is evidence of the sweeping tide of unbelief that marks so many institutions and churches in our time. Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? The answer to that question must be a decisive No. Those who deny the virgin birth reject the authority of Scripture, deny the supernatural birth of the Savior, undermine the very foundations of the Gospel, and have no way of explaining the deity of Christ.
Anyone who claims that the virgin birth can be discarded even as the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest or theological incompetent. Several years ago, Cecil Sherman--then a Southern Baptist, but later the first coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship--stated: "A teacher who might also be led by the Scripture not to believe in the Virgin Birth should not be fired." Consider the logic of that statement. A Christian can be led by the Bible to deny what the Bible teaches? This kind of logic is what has allowed those who deny the virgin birth to sit comfortably in liberal theological seminaries and to preach their reductionistic Christ from major pulpits. Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.
"Everyone admits that the Bible represents Jesus as having been conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. The only question is whether in making that representation the Bible is true or false." So declared J. Gresham Machen in his great work, The Virgin Birth of Christ. As Machen went on to argue, "if the Bible is regarded as being wrong in what it says about the birth of Christ, then obviously the authority of the Bible in any high sense, is gone."
The authority of the Bible is almost completely gone where liberal theology holds its sway. The authority of the Bible is replaced with the secular worldview of the modern age and the postmodern denial of truth itself. The true church stands without apology upon the authority of the Bible and declares that Jesus was indeed "born of a virgin." Though the denial of this doctrine is now tragically common, the historical truth of Christ's birth remains inviolate. No true Christian can deny the virgin birth.
Satan wants Christians to argue about things like this and not focus on the importance of Jesus and his sacrifice and message. It makes not one wit of difference if he was born of a virgin or born in the natural way. I always felt God adopted him when he was baptized in the River Jordan. The same if Jesus was married or if he really turned water into wine. We are saved by his grace—not his miracles. If he was married I have even more respect for him to have finished his ministry with a wife in tow. Jesus was made flesh and lived as we do.
“It makes not one wit of difference if he was born of a virgin or born in the natural way.”
It makes a VERY BIG difference. Without the virgin birth there would be no salvation, for the man Jesus would be just that, a man. A sinful man.
Jesus was human. He received this physical attribute from Mary His mother. He did not receive the sin nature of Joseph, but the sinless nature of the Holy Spirit.
But say they are right. Then why follow Jesus rather than Mohammed, or Buddha, or any of them.
I don't pretend to be a great theological or philosophical mind. But I can tell you this. Any God that I could put in a test tube with some litmus paper, and watch it turn blue, is not a god that I have any use or respect for.
But say they are right. Then why follow Jesus rather than Mohammed, or Buddha, or any of them.
I don't pretend to be a great theological or philosophical mind. But I can tell you this. Any God that I could put in a test tube with some litmus paper, and watch it turn blue, is not a god that I have any use or respect for.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
What an odd and long article for something that I *thought* was a given with all Christian religions. I guess not.
Parthenogenesis is a form of reproduction in which an embryo is conceived and develops in a female without male fertilization.
It has been observed naturally occurring in reptiles, birds, other species.
It has never been reported naturally occurring in a mammal, let alone a human.
But it is theoretically possible. And it is not at all illogical or irrational to believe that the virgin birth did happen as the Gospels report.
Parthenogenesis is a form of reproduction in which an embryo is conceived and develops in a female without male fertilization.
It has been observed naturally occurring in reptiles, birds, other species.
It has never been reported naturally occurring in a mammal, let alone a human.
That may not be entirely true. It is exceedingly rare but apparently does occur.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sex2.htm
“There is some evidence, however, that natural parthenogenesis does occasionally occur in humans. There are many instances in which impregnation has allegedly taken place in women without there being any possibility of the semen entering the female genital passage [2]. In some cases it was found either in the course of pregnancy or at the time of childbirth that the female passages were obstructed. In 1956 the medical journal Lancet published a report concerning 19 alleged cases of virgin birth among women in England, who were studied by members of the British Medical Association. The six-month study convinced the investigators that human parthenogenesis was physiologically possible and had actually occurred in some of the women studied [3].”
Lancet. 1956 Jun 30;270(6931):1071-2.Links
Parthenogenesis in human beings.
BALFOUR-LYNN S.
Also...
Mature ovarian cystic teratoma with a highly differentiated homunculus: A case report
[...]In this report, we document a case in which the solid portion of an ovarian teratoma demonstrated considerable differentiation, forming a doll-like structure.
A 25-year-old virginal Japanese woman underwent surgery for an ovarian tumor that was diagnosed as a mature teratoma. A solid mass within the tumor was found to have a head, trunk, and extremities. Consequently, this mass was diagnosed as a mature fetiform teratoma (homunculus). Brain, eye, spinal nerve, ear, teeth, thyroid gland, bone, bone marrow, gut, trachea, blood vessels, and phallic cavernous tissue were confirmed microscopically. Distinctive features were the clear anterior-posterior, ventral-dorsal, and left-right axes, with a spatially well-organized arrangement of the organs. An eye was located on the front of the head, a spinal nerve lay dorsal to the spinal bones, the thyroid gland was anterior to the trachea, and the gut was deep inside the trunk.
Inspiration for what??? To be a good enough person to be accepted by God???
Take heed:
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
It isn't about what you consider yourself. The TRUTH is that it is about what God knows you to be. And He makes that quite clear in scripture.
...is my inspiration
It isn't about inspiration. It is about which master you serve. The Lord God Almighty, or...
It doesn’t make any difference to me.
You may not think it makes a difference now. But it is clear that it will make a difference to you eternally. Whether we think it does or not does not change God.
I’m having trouble finding the verse- I’m sure it’s in there-
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and his virgin birth and thou shalt be saved.
Oh- and before you (or someone else) tries to pigeon hole me- I believe in the virgin birth- but I can’t find any scripture that requires it for salvation.
Will Wallace
Yes, if you consider a Latter-Day Saint (”Mormon”) to be a Christian. In their theology, by the end of the Father’s visitation to Mary, she was no longer a virgin.
A lot of Buddhists also think the Sermon on the Mount is inspirational.
A "Christian" by definition regards Jesus as the unique Son of God. He is the eternally existing 2nd Person of the Trinity, Who, 2000 years ago, chose to be born from a virgin as a human male.
Ever since, those named "Christian" have affirmed those beliefs--sometimes to the point of torture and death. If you cannot affirm those facts, by definition, you are not a Christian.
It is false advertising to claim you are a Christian--in the same way as it would be false advertising to say you are a proud "Republican" but believed in the State ownership and control of all capital...
Just as Republicans believe in private ownership of property, so too Christians believe in the virgin birth.
What does it mean to "believe on the LORD Jesus Christ?" This means that you believe Jesus is God...not merely an inspirational teacher (like the ones who say "I believe in Obama!"). There is and always had been a set of core beliefs that give the content to just what believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is. The oldest summary of that biblical content, is the Apostles Creed (which probably dates only into the 2nd or 3rd centuries, but which content goes directly to the New Testament and affirms and summarizes its core teachings):
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy universal church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone who cannot affirm, that is, SAY HONESTLY, the truths of this creed should not pretend to call themselves a Christian. It confuses the issue to use the name "Christian" for those who only admire Jesus, or Christian ethics, or have some cultural or educational connection to the Church, but cannot give content to its central teaching.
Yes, Jesus alone saves--but not the Jesus of one's own imagination--only that true Jesus as described in holy scripture, "BORN UNTO THE VIRGIN MARY."
You said-Anyone who cannot affirm, that is, SAY HONESTLY, the truths of this creed should not pretend to call themselves a Christian.
I say- Anyone who places any requirement other than the completed work of Christ as a condition of salvation is on much thinner ice than a creed questioner.
Do you honestly believe Jesus is God’s only son as stated in the apostles’ creed?!
What about our adoption into the family- isn’t God OUR father? What then are we?
Creeds help us vocalize our faith- they do not determine our salvation.
Only the blood.
Only the blood.
Obviously “only the blood” of Jesus saves. However that’s not the topic at hand here. The question is, how do WE to the best of our imperfect, fallible and humble way, KNOW just who has received Jesus and His blood?
The way we do so, according to the scripture, is by confession of the mouth of belief (the biblical content which is summarized by the creeds) and a loving, moral lifestyle. If you lack either—I cannot in good conscience call you a brother.
Every cult claims to believe the bible—they say they merely “interpret it” differently. That is how creedal statements—in the earliest days of the Church—arose.
Jesus alone saves, agreed—and that is what scripture teaches. However, scripture also teaches Jesus’ followers agree on certain truths about Jesus...truths the bible in context teaches—and those truths are best summarized in the historic creeds. If you believe the Apostles, and Nicene creeds—that is the summary of essential New Testament truths about Jesus-who-alone-saves—AND your life shows evidence of that belief by how you live—I can call you brother (though of course God alone knows for sure).
The creeds don’t save, they only provide evidence to the rest of us about who are those saved by the blood.
Well you avoided my question about ‘the truth’ of Jesus being God’s only son in the creed you stated must be believed.
But that aside- the question was (is) can a person be a ‘true’ christian and not believe in the virgin birth.
Of course they can. Can a person be a ‘true’ christian and not agree on doctrine- of course they can- otherwise Jesus and I are going to be very lonely at the marriage supper of the lamb :)
The question is NOT should a ‘true’ christian show evidence(s) of being transformed into the image of Christ and bearing fruit in their walk. Of course they should.
You can’t honestly believe that failing to believe in the virgin birth overrides the sacrifice of Christ. THAT is the question posited here (although not worded that way)
If a person cannot be a ‘true’ christian (i don’t know what other types there could possibly be)
Creeds don’t provide evidence of salvation. They help us formulate and propagate our doctrine.
There will be a plethora of non-virgin birth believers, non creation believers, non {insert ancillary belief here} sharing eternity with the rest of the redeemed. And just as I’m sure you and I will discover errors in our beliefs when in the presence of God, these BROTHERS and SISTERS will discover theirs.
NOTHING but the blood, brother (though of course God alone knows for sure) :)
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.