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.
well, it is what you said.
“Because then I get the answer that My views, reasons, opinions and beliefs are mine”
That was not given in answer to any question directed to me and my views nor have I ever said,
“... it’s “none of your business” and “it’s a personal question to ask me what I think about the Trinity”..
when asked a question about my views, have I? Well, have I? Are you going show where?
YES. WHAT I SAID. Which make this comment from #169 wrong, doesnt it?
“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?”
Would you like to correct yourself?
“so then share these views”?????
I have....you just quoted one, the acknowledge of which took several repeated attempts for me to receive.
That's fine as a hypothetical but I really find it offensive to be accused by innuendo or out-rightly of hypocrisy based on a hypothetical or your experience with someone else.
In the sanctity of marriage? Yes. As a sacrament...no.
It might well be, I don't know who you asked or the circumstances or motivations involved. As I follow these threads (even if I don't often comment) I can't recall very many instances of questions posed to seek common ground.
More often it's like “You're evil because you have this evil belief and if you weren't evil you wouldn't think that way!”, that sort of attitude.
You want debate with me...simple... we'll lay some ground rules and have at it.
Most questions about an organizations position can be found at their official web site. When I've commented about Catholic beliefs I've gone to the Catholic encyclopedia, the Catholic Catechism, Catholic authors or at least publications that support and claim Catholicism.
Number one and three sounds like something I might feel justified in saying but number two is most definitely NOT, repeat NOT my words.
I am not responsible for what others say.
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".
Maybe I'm looking at this in a different light, but I saw the ping that metmom sent to the ETG as touching the divisions and doctrinal backbiting that are to be expected as we get closer to the End of Days. We're told that in the End Times, that love for each other would grow cold and it seems to be evident here as well as elsewhere.
As for metmom not saying what she believes, again it may just be my own view of things but I am actually fairly certain that I've seen her profess that she's a former Roman Catholic who is now a Southern Baptist. I realize that I may have information that you're not aware of, but I do know that she's not shy about telling you what she believes if she feels that you're not going to ridicule her beliefs, which is completely understandable. Unfortunately Cronos, the attitude that most often comes across from Catholics during these Protestant-Catholic debates is scorn or ridicule towards us. (YOPIOS? Really?) This may be intentional or it may be unintentional, but it's definitely there, as is the reciprocal attitude that most Protestants have towards Catholics, which is based partially out of misunderstanding and partially out of a difference over how the two camps view the Church's corporate authority in the believer's life. About the only ones who I've never seen adopt this attitude are the Orthodox Christians on FR and I think that's because the couple I've met on here have been deeply devout and dedicated to their walk.
When/where have you (plural) been told not to have a blood transfusion? Source please!
It goes for both sides JA. Ever been on the receiving end of a YOPIOS tirade, or watching the character-assassination of another poster because he actually has the gall to believe that what we think are UFOs are actually related to the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6? I have and the Holy Spirit is not in such a display.
As for getting snide about faith vs. works, how about getting snide about no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, as if they and they alone were the sole possessors of the Truth. All I have to say about that is this; if the RCC is the only "True Church", as some here have claimed, then why did Christ tell John and the other disciples in Mark 9 that "...he that is not against us is on our part." instead of telling them that only they had the Truth?
Mar 9:38-40 KJV - [38] And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. [39] But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. [40] For he that is not against us is on our part.
That's as clear a teaching on this whole Protestant-Catholic divide as any, and it's from our Lord's own mouth! That overrules all other authorities on the matter, be it Pastor, Priest, Pope, Church Father or even an Apostle.
So seriously, drop the attitude. We're your Brothers and Sisters in Christ and Family isn't supposed to treat each other like this.
You mention the ridicule that protestants ger from Catholics. Frankly, the protestans are reaping what they sowed. I have never been on the RF one day that I didn’t hear from someone that man-made institutions can’t save anyone (nevermind that Christ started the Church) that Catholics worship Mary, that our beliefs are non-biblical, that invoking the aid of the saints in heaven was demonic praying to the dead, etc. And worse, much worse. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but people reap what they sow, God is not mocked. I’m not the only Catholic who has been dogpiled, made fun of, had the Mod called on me, all the rest of the poor me stuff that Proddy’s wail about and compare their “persecution” to what Christ endured.
Please don’t try to tell me that you have never seen this.
Like the song says, “Plant a radish, get a radish, not a brussel sprout...”
And no, I first became active on the RF after my husband died. I was looking for something I needed, and thought I could find here. Well, the name-calling, the picture posting, the screaming arguments, I’m annoyed. I wouldn’t trust a protestant on this forum to tell me it was daylight at noon. The number of falsehoods about the Holy Father being a Nazi, the statements that Catholics killed 200 million, the utter denial of the truth of history—the blanket statements that Catholics call St. Paul names, when I have averred many times that I am the ONLY one who doesn;t like him—never did and still don’t—
You collectively reap what you collectively sow.
Your protestant friends have driven off all the orthodox posters. I hope you are happy.
All that, and not one word about how the Catholics gang up on Protestant posters here just as quickly if not more so, especially if that Protestant is also a Dispensationalist. Biased much JA? I freely admit that the Protestants on here have work to do when it comes to how they deal with others, yet you can't even do the same in regards to your Catholic Brothers and Sisters. Why is that?
What you see as yopios mocking in particular came as a form of retaliation after a year of being continuously mocked with pictures, names etc.
I don't deny that now on all sides there are hardened stances and all "sides" are to blame.
About the only ones who I've never seen adopt this attitude are the Orthodox Christians on FR and I think that's because the couple I've met on here have been deeply devout and dedicated to their walk. -- and while our Orthodox brethren ARE deeply devout and dedicated, have you noticed that they are nowadays nonexistent on FR? Or for that matter, the Lutheran posters?
The reason is that they were utterly disgusted by the turn of FR with mocking of what some non-Catholics saw as purely Catholic beliefs (the True presence etc.) down to the level of name-calling and downright blasphemy -- of course what those who did the mocking did not know was that these beliefs were also shared by the Orthodox and Lutherans.
===================
It is posters like you, new posters, and some of the older posters who stayed away from these fights (I can name xzins or don-o etc) as those who can reform the FR RF by calling us old-timers out when we step out of the line and by being an example of someone who can disagree without being insulting.
Ok, then why stick in post 168? If not responsible then why jump into a conversation ?
I see the tenets encapsulated in that as giving common ground.
Oh, my, a n00b! I’ve only been here a decade, not as long as some, but you have no room to talk. And I see no reason to read anything you post, either, as you don’t have enough information to bolster your credibility.
Remember when rZman21 first came on to the RF? Remember the FINE welcome our “reformed” friends gave him?
>>>>>I don’t deny that now on all sides there are hardened stances and all “sides” are to blame.
Sorry FRiend, I’m not taking any blame. I’m still angry.
And yet you lecture us Protestants on being Christian? Pot, kettle, black.
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.