[BBC List] virgin birth

[Mike Abendroth]

Must We Believe the Virgin Birth?


Friday, December 08, 2006

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, argues 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.

 

 

Thanks.

 

Charis,

 

Mike Abendroth

 

 <http://www.bbcchurch.org> www.bbcchurch.org

 

2 Tim 1:2b  "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord."

 

"After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more
than any other ... I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read ...
For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is
incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything
that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers -- so much that I
concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished
above others, above most, indeed, above all."  Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20061213/9a6656a5/attachment.htm