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 general interest.
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.
It’s interesting, but by no means dispositive.
I never said they didn’t pick up an acorn or two. What I am saying is , there is NO first hand witness to any of the events that can be verified, only conjecture.
The Wonder of Annunciation
Lebanese Sheik Helped Get Annunciation Recognized as National Holiday
Why Be Catholic? 8: Incarnation [Ecumenical]
Catholic Word of the Day: INCARNATION, 02-12-10
The Wonder of the Incarnation
The Annunciation: When Freedom and Love Were One by Bishop Fulton Sheen
The Baltimore Cathechism: The Incarnation - Lesson Seven
Feast of the Annunciation: March 25 [Catholic Caucus]
THE ANNUNCIATION: MARY'S OPENNESS TO THE WILL OF GOD [Pope John Paul II] (Catholic Caucus)
Fear of the Incarnation and its Discontents [Ecumenical]
Theological word Of The Day: Incarnation
The Incarnation - Lesson 7 from the Baltimore Cathechism
Day of the Unborn Child Celebrated Internationally on March 25, Remembrance of Christ's Incarnation
Fiat! - Blessed Annunciation
The Eve of the Annunciation
Vatican changes dates for 2008 Annunciation, St. Joseph feasts
Orthodox Feast of the Annunciation of the Theotokos, March 25
HOMILIES PREACHED BY FATHER ALTIER ON THE FEAST OF THE ANUNCIATION
THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos, March 25
Feast of the Annunciation - March 25th
Discipleship in Mary
The Power of One Hail Mary
The Annuniciation [Pavone]
Happy Mothers Day - The Annunciation - a poem
Dr. Moehler does not agree with the likes of Nicholas Kristof and Hans Kung.
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.
I never witnessed the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. I know about it and I might even write about it but I have no first hand knowledge of it, I can only write about what I have been told.
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 general interest.
This is NOT the Catholic Caucas and no I am not Catholic!!!
LLS
Surprising it may seem in this age, “young girl” and “virgin” were indistinguishable. Aramaic as a language wasn’t nearly as rich as modern English or even ancient Greek and Latin.
How about “The Message”? :)
I’ve wondered why there can’t be a good KJB av1611 translation into modern English without any monkey business.
There are eastern bibles that are written in Syriac. The New testament of the Peshitta (Syriac bible) was standard in the middle east by the 5th century and did not include many disputed books, the antilegomena, aswell as all the catholic epistles and the book of revelation(to which sadly alot of tin foil hat evangelicals are orgasmic about).
Then there is the codex sinaiticus, the oldest bible, in greek which includes several more books in the OT as well as an extra epistle and the Shepherd of hermas.
My question is, how is it possible that we “know” more now about which verses are canon than the people who lived a few years after the fact.
I do believe in the virgin birth. I do believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, but those in my opinion are logical and are actions I know not to take morally, not because im afraid of going to hell. In the same way im not sure that Noah lived to be 950 years old, or his son Shem to be 900ish. Those just sound ridiculous to me, and in my opinion, along with many stories in the old and new testament, are meant to be taken allegorically and not literally.
I don’t understand your statement. This is an open thread. I posted links about the Annunciation.
You might read one or two if you wish to learn something. Why are you seemingly so hostile?
First, manuscripts outside the Bible referring to the virgin birth date as far back as about 100-120 AD with Ignatius, and very shortly after that with Aristides of Athens, not to mention every manuscript and version of Matthew and Luke of which I am aware, so we're not becoming less intellectual over time, we're following a long tradition central to the faith that has formed the foundation for Western Civilization. I should be shocked, although I'm not, that those who object to the underpinnings of our culture don't show much interest in moving to China, Syria, Libya, central Africa, or the rest of the world that is mostly unaffected by the faith they despise.
Second, I hope Freepers appreciate the irony in critiquing a central Christian doctrine for requiring a "leap of faith":
(Matthew 9:21) Jesus turned about, and when He saw her, He said, "Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole." And the woman was made whole from that hour.
(Luke 18 :42) And Jesus said unto him, "Go thy way. Thy faith hath made thee whole." And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.
(Luke 17:19) And He said unto him (a leper), "Arise; go thy way. Thy faith hath made thee whole."
(Matthew 15:28) Then Jesus answered and said unto her, "O woman, great is thy faith. Be it unto thee even as thou wilt." And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
(Luke 7:50) And He said to the (sinful) woman (who washed and anointed His feet), "Thy faith hath saved thee. Go in peace."
(John 20:29) Jesus said unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed."
Excuse me for not being embarrassed at the leap of faith in my religious beliefs. Unless the above quotes and so many others were inserted by American Christians to justify our invention of "faith" as a new fad, I'm going to assume that Jesus Himself valued faith as a religious virtue, and that we are following a long and essentially unchanged tradition.
And I should stop believing anything unless I hear it from a direct witness? Does that include the Civil War, where I have met one Civil War veteran, although I don't remember a word he said because I was still in diapers, so meeting him doesn't count? I should doubt the existence of George Washington, because I've never met a first hand witness to his alleged existence or even to the cherry tree he may or may not have chopped down? And the same for Barack Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama's alleged American identity, since I have never met a first hand witness to his presence on American soil before graduating from college (after interacting with no one who admits to a first hand encounter during college) as a full fledged Manchurian Candidate community organizer? History and Theology would be very short studies under your standard!
Yes, the ancient heresies are still around and it is almost comical when someone like Kristoff, whom I somewhat admire, write about them, as if they are relevant after 2,000 years of the Church rejecting them.
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.