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.
Who demands answers from others?
Who doesn't talk about their own faith?
So, if that person instead of talking about their faith instead says "bug off", that tells everyone a lot about what they actually believe....
What I believe is in my posting history. I make no secret about it. If anyone can't understand it, they can ask for clarification at the time.
Likely if someone doesn't understand the position I hold, this is the problem.....
1 Corinthians 2:11-16 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
I hate to break it to you, but all the explanations in the world are not going to make sense to someone who does not have spiritual discernment and enlightenment.
“What I believe is in my posting history. I make no secret about it. If anyone can’t understand it, they can ask for clarification at the time.”
Should FR be like the Oprah show? Everyone yak about themselves and oh, be sure and bring some “confession” like a dish to a pot luck supper? Fergitaboutit!
there's a screen name met, mom
Who doesn't talk about their own faith? -- strange that you of all people ask about that.
Read through the entire posting history and you'll see nothing of what the person believes, rather it is continuously "I will not say what I believe, but I will condemn you for what you believe". the word is hypocritical.
The difference is that when someone is a Jehovah’s Witness and will only focus on mocking orthodoxy, that’s hypocritical. Not talking about met when I say Jehovah’s Witness = count-your-change
A person who says "bug off, I won't tell you what my beliefs are, rather I will mock your beliefs, make up stories about what you belief etc." -- that person has no aim to spread the word of God, to spread the teachings of Christ (or whoever) they believe in, rather it is a way of venting frustration. Sad....
But, why are you making this about you? It’s about the group’s belief.
Why are your posts so adversarial to metmom, when as a member of the body we could support one another?
And I might add, taking disagreements personally?
Thanks and shalom.
Oh for goodness sake Judith, the End Times ping list that metmom is using is a multi-denominational ping list. There's Protestants, Catholics and Messianic Jews as well as Orthodox Jews on it and I seem to remember an Orthodox Christian on there too, but I could be wrong on that last one. Heck, I think we've even got a Jehovah's Witness or two on the list as well.
The point is that we all believe different things about the End Times but we're mature enough to talk to each other without flame-baiting each other on doctrine. We know we disagree on things but that doesn't stop us from talking to each other and explaining why we believe what we believe.
Quit trying to make it something that it's not.
1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Jeremiah 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?
>>I hate to break it to you, but all the explanations in the world are not going to make sense to someone who does not have spiritual discernment and enlightenment.<<
1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
thank you — I’ve pmed you
Oh, I’m not taking any issue personally. Rather is it mockery to call Jehovah’s Witnesses silly when they tell us not to have blood transfusions?
The Jehovah’s Witnesses say “As with abortion due to medical necessity transfusion of blood for medical necessity is a term proving obsolete. “ — now is it mockery to call that a false, delusional comparison?
If a poster says “When/If you are able to speak to the subject in a serious and even slightly informed way please let me know. “ — isn’t that making disagreements personal?
What is incredible is the hypocrisy that “oh, I can criticise the mote in your eye but you can’t comment on the plank in mine”....
That heresy was promulgated by the Roman Pontiff, Constantine in 325CE.
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?
Take you as a contrary example, you say what you believe and why you do not agree with our beliefs. Fine. Even more, you will say that among people who believe the same as you do, there are small faults and they need to be worked on.
As I've said before about what we acknowledge (Trinity, etc) -- when you say you believe in "this", we have a common point, we have a commonality. It means that beyond that we can argue, bitterly even, but we will know that we have something in common.
The alternative is "I will not tell you what I believe but I disagree with everything you believe in" -- this leads to no dialogue, this does not even lead to that person preaching what they may believe is the right way or even giving people direction, rather it is just a fight zone then -- "I disagree with everything about you, I am utterly not you and reject everything about you".
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.