Posted on 12/27/2016 1:47:04 PM PST by Cecily
What central tenant of believing in Yeshua as the Christ, and in believing Christ, is violated by not believing He was born of a virgin?
A central tenant for many Christians is that the Bible, and only the Bible, is the authoritative Word of God. That it alone is the final authority in determining all doctrinal truths; and in its original writing it is inspired, infallible, and inerrant.
Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until she had born a son, who he named Jesus.
Luke 1:34 states that Mary asked the angel how it can be that she will conceive and bear a son since she is a virgin. (NRSV)
To say that Jesus was not born of a virgin contradicts these passages in the Bible, which to these Christians is the equivalent of contradicting God.
Or we could just say I believe God’s Word. That covers everything. The creeds leave out so much.
“First of all, you don’t know what the thief on the cross knew or did not know. So out goes that argument.”
That you cannot answer it in the affirmative doesn’t invalidate the question - or its OBVIOUS answer.
“However, is the Triune God revealed in the Old Testament?”
Most Jews would say no. They would tell you the plurality is used to show greatness. And the details as found in the Athanasian Creed were developed by philosophers discussing God. The details are certainly not explicitly taught in scripture.
Before you or anyone else hyperventilates, I’m not denying the doctrine of the Trinity. But that doctrine, as discussed in the Athanasian Creed, is one a lot of believers could not pull out of scripture even with years of reading and thinking.
Why?
Because God is not a fit subject for human dissection. God does not reveal systematic theology because God knows theology doesn’t change lives. We are explicitly taught we are sinners, we need to repent, we need to be forgiven and need to let God change us from within. We need faith, not in creeds, but in GOD.
Believer’s baptism is clearly taught in scripture. Yet many deny it, including the Catholic Church. The need for the baptism of the Holy Spirit is clearly taught, and indeed, no one can be a Christian without it, yet theologians largely ignore it.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. For after He says:
16
This is the covenant I will make with them
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws on their hearts
and write them on their minds,
17 He adds:
I will never again remember
their sins and their lawless acts.
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. - Hebrews 10
God is interested in our changed lives. He is not interested in our ability to dissect Him.
I’ve never heard or read a sermon by Andy Stanley. Don’t know if he is a heretic or believer. But saying a person can be saved without knowing about the Virgin Birth is hardly radical. It ought to be obvious. It also should be obvious that the important point about Christmas isn’t the Virgin Birth, but that God came to earth to save us from sin.
God saves us. Theology does not. If you doubt me, look to the seminaries filled with unbelievers. Look at the church doctrines that accept sprinkling babies as a true baptism and get back with me about how theological discussions save souls.
“Before you or anyone else hyperventilates ...”
It seems to me that you are the one doing the hyperventilating. Why did you drag “believer’s baptism” into this?
If you can’t stick to the point at issue, there is no discussion. The exercise simply turns into something akin to a cable “news” program of two talking heads exchanging ranting monologues.
“Or we could just say I believe God’s Word. That covers everything. The creeds leave out so much.”
Sure, we can “just say I believe God’s Word.” But nearly any member of any Christian denomination can say that (and mean it). So can Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientists.
Of course the Creeds don’t cover everything. They were meant to cover only those Scriptural teachings about which there had been controversy up to the particular time they were formulated. Read history.
“Why did you drag “believer’s baptism” into this?”
Because it IS relevant.
Theologians and creeds can’t even figure out the obvious - that Believer’s Baptism is clearly taught in scripture. If theologians can’t even get THAT right, then just how useful are their speculations on the nature of man and deity in Christ to salvation?
Why should we worry about the creeds of a church that taught the existence of priests instead of the universal priesthood of all believers, and infant baptism versus believer’s baptism? Just how essentials are creeds developed by man for salvation?
The point Andy Stanley seems to have been making was simply that knowledge of and acceptance of the Virgin Birth is not a prerequisite for salvation. There isn’t anything radical about that, provided he ALSO teaches that believers need to accept the revealed truth of the Virgin Birth - once they know it.
I’m not the one who brought up the Athanasian Creed as essential teaching.
When they don’t call themselves Baptist but rather by the geography it’s a giveaway it’s a potential issue there
Pity
Any Baptist like I am or anyone else doesn’t think Christ was born of a virgin birth has a real problem
We’ll try this one more time, and one only, keeping it very simple. Which assertion of the Athanasian Creed is not faithful to the Scriptures? If you designate one, or more, please cite Scripture that contradicts it.
That is very well put
Some claim if you don’t believe the creeds you’re damned. That’s the problem with the creeds. To some they supersede the Word itself.
So why did his parents divorce in their 60s and didn’t Andy take his moms side?
Pretty unseemly considering....the divorce
That is not what I asked you. Can or will you simply answer the question without obfuscation?
What question did you ask?
The narrative and the context indicate that this is what happened. Mary was confused and wondered how that was supposed to work (not that she disbelieved Gabriel, she just couldn't think of the methodology). Furthermore, Joseph naturally could not have imagined how this could have happened [outside her having relations with another man], so he needed to be clued in as well.
Thus the "central tenant" is believing the text. Now of course in modern times virgin births can be had through IFV. Nobody would think twice about how that could happen, and nobody would claim that the children conceived by means of doctors and lab technicians are gods. Half the chromosomes come from the father, but are directed to the egg a different way.
Yet who even considers that it was Joseph's chromosomes that could come to Mary by means of the Holy Spirit to cause the conception of a child. The assumption is that Jesus is some mysterious man-god hybrid, because that's what people came up with themselves to explain (!) what they couldn't understand. Mary had the sense to inquire. And Joseph was righteous, not wanting to embarrass Mary, but as is the way with men, they just aren't wired to stop and ask for directions, so an angel of the Lord told him. By means of the Holy Spirit. And he believed it. Ah, what a relief then, because something didn't add up.. Mary just didn't seem the type..
Son of David. Through Joseph the son of David. Son to son to son, as it should be, as was promised to David. But if people don't really believe the promises of God, then they've got to create all sorts of clever arguments and justifications to explain their own ideas that make no sense. Keeps the house of merchandise in business.
“We’ll try this one more time, and one only, keeping it very simple. Which assertion of the Athanasian Creed is not faithful to the Scriptures?”
How about we stick to the topic: What theological doctrine is required knowledge for salvation?
From the posted article: “Stanley also said he believes people can become Christians without knowing the narratives around Jesus’ birth.”
What is radical about that statement?
As for the Creed:
“Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.”
Where does scripture say believing that “is necessary to everlasting salvation”?
“29 Then the jailer called for lights, rushed in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he escorted them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the message of the Lord to him along with everyone in his house. 33 He took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds. Right away he and all his family were baptized.” - Acts 16
Just how theologically “smart” does a person need to be saved?
And why would anyone trust a formula on the nature of God developed by people who rebelled against His revealed word? If they didn’t understand and accept what is clearly taught, how can they be authoritative on what is NOT clearly taught?
The Virgin Birth is, at least, explicitly taught in scripture. But someone who doubts it might be the equivalent of someone who doubts the worldwide Genesis flood...which I accept, but which isn’t a true/false question that one must pass to be saved.
If it was Joseph’s chromosomes that eventually made up Jesus’ other DNA half, why did Mary ask how it was that she would be with child? Wouldn’t she expect Joseph would be the father by the usual, natural means?
Your comment actually prompted me to listen to it again. Same result - bunch of words, no Gospel...just generic "leadership" dialogue: appreciate your team, publicly affirm good behavior, say thank you, etc. The focus on "leadership" is something I never heard growing up in the SBC/Protesant hardwood pews. Seems like a new breed of soft baptist/bible church preachers - many of them are raking in the $$$.
Yes
Prosperity or self validation Christianity
It’s not God at work
I mixed up the senders. What I posted to you was meant for Mr Rogers (see post 48). My apologies.
Regarding your “some say ...”, I would only reply some say all kinds of things. I am not responsible for irresponsible comments of others. But, to answer you, the creeds do not supersede the Scriptures. The creeds are drawn from the Scriptures. That is their value.They remind us of basic things taught in the Scriptures that would not otherwise be known to us if not for the Scriptures.
Let me give you an analogy. The Pledge of Allegiance does not supersede the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It is drawn from them. If a person, after serious consideration, objects to the Pledge, does that person have a problem simply with the Pledge or is it really with the Declaration and Constitution themselves? The Pledge is a simple reminder to us of what it is to be a U.S. citizen. Should we discontinue using it because we fear it may inhibit people from going to the effort of reading through the Declaration and Constitution?
Sorry, Mr Rogers, I see no point in continuing this. You ask me, “what theological doctrine is required knowledge for salvation?” That is not the point. The Judge of what constitutes true faith is God, because He is the one who give it. (John 6:44; Ephesians 2:4-10) So, that is a matter God reserves strictly to Himself.
That said, there is the question of what is true about God and man? God’s word speaks to just such things. One cannot deny something clearly taught in the Scriptures without danger. That should be obvious from Jesus’ discussions with the Pharisee, Sadducees, Herodians, and other individuals. So, there is such a thing as truth regarding God and man. That truth can be confessed by one who believes. That is what gave the early church courage to formulate the Apostles Creed, not in an attempt to replace the Word of God, which is not possible, but to confess it. (Romans 10:8-11)
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.