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.
How do you know? Who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
I’m going to jump in (an out!), but it seems to me that the folks Jesus was getting his message to were the ordinary folks. Not sure how literate they were back then. And I heard an interesting conjecture on why the scriptures weren’t written for another 20 to 30(???) years or later after Jesus. The thinking goes that the disiples thought Jesus would return in their lifetime. But after awhile they realized that might not be so - and so got to writing Jesus’ stories down.
Sort of like my mom writing her “memoirs” and talking about the roaring 20’s, the Depression, WWII, etc. She got to writing down her memories about 20 years ago when my dad was sick and the feeling that she better get some stuff down in writing to be able to pass it on. (And she still keeps adding to them when she thinks of something!)
Of course many of the stories I heard or witnessed as a child. If she had made up some wild stories my older kids and I would have called her on them.
And while there are lots of arguments on the veracity of the Bible, etc. - it does come down to faith. However, many of the best Christian apologetics around set out to prove the Bible wrong. And based on the evidence - gained faith.
believing in the virgin birth is nothing. I mean, if Jesus is God he can do anything he wants to do...
The real problem is to believe that the God of the huge universe cares so much for us that he became a lowly poor man to teach us how to live.
Glad you jumped in.
And I heard an interesting conjecture on why the scriptures weren’t written for another 20 to 30(???) years or later after Jesus. The thinking goes that the disiples thought Jesus would return in their lifetime. But after awhile they realized that might not be so - and so got to writing Jesus’ stories down.
Very good. The first converts and the first generation gradually realized that Jesus was not immediately coming back and that they had to go beyond what they were doing at the time. They had to create a body of Scripture, and they had to ensure that the various Church offices (especially bishop) had established a methodology of succession.
And while there are lots of arguments on the veracity of the Bible, etc. - it does come down to faith. However, many of the best Christian apologetics around set out to prove the Bible wrong. And based on the evidence - gained faith.
Quite agree. I pulled a prodigal son act in my teens and twenties. The Lord was quite patient and quite convincing, as it turned out...
you’ve pointed that out before...that’s a Jewish argument for denying Christ...
But God uses the church to interpret these things, including the decision on what books belong there...and the Greek version used by the early Christians used the word for virgin...and of course, a young unmarried girl in those days would never have a baby out of wedlock...
It is not possible for a Christian to doubt the virgin birth.
Culturalists might, but not Christians.
sadly, this was the next stage in their development. Metmom -- what argument does your group give against the virgin birth?
Yet look at Unitarians or uri’s messianic-something religious group. They reject the virgin birth. And if you listen even briefly to the big kirk guys like Osteen, etc, you can wonder what they preach on this...
cyc — do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in the virgin birth?
ego and pride. To reject the beliefs of the Early Christians based on one's interpretation in the year 2011 is egotistical, to say the least.
Noah lived to be 950... — well, compare this to mythologies from Iran or India and you have people living for hundreds of years. Is it possible that climate change affected the length of a person’s life? Climate change post flood?
One of my kid’s just asked me that - about the long life spans.
My conjecture - with NO evidence to back it up - is that perhaps sin has grown with time, or each generation. Adam & Eve would have lived forever if not for their sin. And that original sin perhaps get passed down like those inbreeding maladies like the Kings and Queens of Europe had and things go from bad to worse.
So over time lifespans went from 900+ to 40-something(???) in the middle ages.
But with science, we are able to create cleaner environments, heal sickness, etc. - the life span has increased over the years in more recent history.
IMIAHO (In my ignorant and humble opinion!)
“Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth.”
That is hysterical. Just a hoot.
God can make the heavens and the Earth, all that is seen and unseen, but creating one strand of DNA at a particular time and place is beyond Him.
Clusters of galaxies, no problem. One strand of DNA: sorry, out of the question.
I hope other people get as much merriment from my folly as I do from theirs.
Thus Paul in Hebrews chapter 11 describes many who displayed, not credulity, but rather belief, faith, an assured expectation based upon evidence.
As I say, nothing is IMPOSSIBLE with God! :)
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.