I know this is not a topic that many are comfortable talking about. It is also Advent/Christmas and thus the Virgin Birth is on the minds of many. As we know, the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke say that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus. But not everyone believes it. And I am not just talking about "scholars." There are a number of people who call themselves Christians and yet do not believe in the virgin birth. For whatever reason they find it to be a pious legend the communicates more theology than history. The question I would like to put to my readers is: Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? The impetus for the question comes from an article Albert Mohler wrote yesterday in which he argues that one cannot be a Christian and not believe in the Virgin Birth. He concludes the article with this statement.
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.
So my question is this - Must a Christian believe in the Virgin Birth? Must they be convinced of its historical veracity? What I am NOT asking for is evidence for or against the virgin birth. I know the arguments and that is a different topic. But I am interested in hearing as to whether you think a person can be a Christian and NOT believe in the historical veracity of the virgin birth and why or why not.
HT: Allan Bevere
I'd say that since not all the New Testament authors show evidence of having believed in a virginal conception of Jesus, and they can all safely be said to be Christians, therefore one can be a Christian without believing in the virgin birth.
ReplyDeleteI concur, all those who came to believe that jesus was the messiah, did not do so by believing he was bron of a virgin. Virgins births have all been linked to myths and pagans beliefs.
DeleteAs one who thinks that it is possible to be a faithful Christian and not believe literally in every word of the Bible, yes, I think it is possible to not be convinced about the virgin birth. In a sense it's less that I don't believe than I just don't find it all that important. A larger issue (maybe for another day) is that if the virgin birth is so crucial because of the understanding of atonement, maybe it's ok to start to consider other biblically based readings of the atonement (see for instance Denny Weaver's "The Nonviolent Atonement").
ReplyDeleteI agree with James. Not to take anything away from the creeds and what Matt. & Luke have to say, the virgin birth does not seem to be crucial to one's faith.
ReplyDeleteTo make this issue pivotal to one's confession of faith reveals more of Mohler's take on inerrancy than it does on what is necessary for one to be a Christ-follower.
I thought we were Christian because of what Jesus did, not what Mary didn't do.
ReplyDeleteStill, I hold to the Virgin Birth because of what it declares: grace. God was at work in Mary's life apart from anything she did or didn't do.
How does grace come to us? Before any of us could have ever conceived it through our own activity.
I approach this like Mark. I do think it has value as a Christian confession, but I don't think it makes you Christian to confess it or not a Christian if you deny it. For instance, the Pledge of Allegiance has the statement "one nation under God". It is part of the set communal affirmation of the nation, but one's citizenship is not determined by that line. Likewise, I don't challenge that the church catholic teaches it, but I don't see this as factoring into the saving work of God. As James noted rightly, we don't have evidence that some of the earliest Christians affirmed the doctrine, yet most of us assume they were "Christians" none-the-less.
ReplyDeleteIs Mary's virginity the important thing or Jesus paternity? If Jesus did not inherit his divinity "biologically" via the Holy Spirit, is the door left open for adoptionism? It seems to me that the purpose of the virgin birth is to shut down a number of unacceptable conclusions. Otherwise, as Jonathan says, it brings very little to table compared to Jesus actions and fate.
ReplyDeleteI would take some exception to James' argument. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To say that not all NT authors give evidence of believing in a virginal conception is not say that they did not believe it. At best, the absence among some NT authors might suggest that it was not a core part of their message.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I would turn the question around a bit and ask, "Why shouldn't a Christian believe in the virginal conception."
I answer your question with another question: What is a Christian?
ReplyDeleteDid Paul believe in the virgin birth? Sure, in Galatians he mentions "born of woman, born under the law," but he doesn't specify what kind of birth it was that Jesus had. And he certainly doesn't seem to place it as an essential when it comes to being Christian or not.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think one needs to believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian. Why? Because I think God is bigger than our little doctrines.
My Dad doesn't believe in the virgin conception. There seem to be a number of other things like that he feels he doesn't need to believe in. I find this a bit reductionist. I think it requires too much cleverness to argue these points of faith away into being unnecessary. For me, one I accept omnipotent God then I don't need to start deciding what he could or couldn't have done based on its rational likelihood or ease of explanation. If God uses the humble to shame the wise then I see no reason to deny myself the magic of believing in the virgin conception...
ReplyDeleteJoy Godfrey
Following on James above, can we really safely say that all of the New Testament authors were Christians? :-0
ReplyDeleteAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Paul never mentions John the Baptist, does this imply John B did not exist according to Paul? Paul also does not mention the baptism of Jesus. The Epistle of James does not mention the resurrection of Jesus. Can we infer from this that one can be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection of Jesus? If God can raise the dead, I am sure He is fully competent to cause a virgin to become pregnant and bear a child.
ReplyDeleteGod can do as he pleases, or can he? whatever view you take, one thing is for certain, God will not break natural laws, otherwise he would suspend gravity evey time someone(particulary children) were in danger of falling to their deaths.
DeleteSorry I forgot my name in the above post at 1:48 PM: Tony Costa
ReplyDeleteGlad I got in here late. made me wish this was FB so I could just cruise down and click like . . . like . . . like.
ReplyDeleteIt IS about what God did and what Jesus did. The virgin birth? Nice touch. But the salvific grace part, given God's history of elevating the low, could have as easily been born of an old, worn out woman if God so chose.
A man was standing off the edge of the San Francisco Bay Bridge about to jump. A passerby tried to talk him down. He asked: "Are you a Christian?" to which the man answered "Yes." He exclaimed: "Great, me too! What kind of Christian are you? Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant?" The answer was: "Protestant." "Me too!! What kind of Protestant? Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal?" He answered, "Pentecostal." The man got excited: "Me too!!! Are you an initial evidence or a third wave Pentecostal?" "Initial evidence." "Me too!!!! What kind of initial evidence? Are you a AOG, CRC, COC, CCC?" "AOG." Now, he got truly excited: "Me too!!!!! Are you Premillenial, Post Millenial or Amillenial?" The guy on the bridge said: "Amillenial" and with that the passer-by, becoming very angry, screamed: "Die, heretic!" and pushed him off the bridge.
ReplyDeleteWhere do we draw the final line of who is in and who is not? Geoffrey Wainwright claims that all Christian doctrines hang upon the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps Trinity is the only commonality we must all affirm to carry the moniker "Christian?"
~Andy Bartel
My opinion: You can be a Christian and not believe in the virgin birth.
ReplyDeleteThe virgin birth was obviously not considered essential to the theology of the early Church, evidenced in that, besides two authors, no New Testament author makes any mention of it, and the authors who talk about it at all never mention it again in the rest of their writings. Remove the virgin birth from Christian dogma, and Christianity is virtually unaffected.
I'm with James. Personally, I kind of believe in it, but not very firmly, given the sketchy Biblical data. I do need to explore the Christological difference the virginal conception (because that's what's important, right, not the birth?) makes before I make my mind up entirely.
ReplyDeleteThe wider question is, to what extent do the elements of the Christian faith constitute a "cafeteria plan," from which the professed believer is free pick and choose to confess whichever doctrines suit him or her at the moment? Or are there certain basics that all "Christians" MUST confess, because from ancient times the testimony of the church has said that these basics constitute the faith? The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, widely recognized across denominational lines and throughout history as two of the three "Ecumenical Creeds," specifically imply that a necessary element of the faith is that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, just as other necessary elements of the faith are that He was crucified, suffered, died, rose, and will return to judge the living and the dead. (The Athanasian Creed remains silent on the Virgin Birth.)
ReplyDeleteTo claim to be a Christian and yet decline to confess this element of the faith is not inconsequential after all, not because the rest of the elements will come tumbling down like a house of cards but because the so-called Christian who assembles his or her own creed from miscellaneous pieces is in effect saying to the rest of the church ("the communion of saints" =? "the community of believers"), "I don't really want to associate with you guys after all." See I Corinthians 12.
How impoverished Christianity becomes when you rely only on Scripture and ignore Tradition. Of course, since the early days of the Church, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the divinity of Christ has been defended.
ReplyDeleteTo believe otherwise has always been heretical.
Andy,
ReplyDeleteWho says we should be drawing lines?
I wonder how our beliefs would be shaped with the virgin birth story were not there at all. Would we still believe in the deity of Christ simply on the basis of his words, his miracles, and the resurrection? It's hard to think that we wouldn't. Therefore, while the virgin birth narrative proclaims Christ the Son of God, to take that story away would not make Christ's deity untrue.
ReplyDeleteI note that there are a few comments here suggesting the the virgin birth is what makes Jesus the son of God. But in reality being the son of God does not require a virgin birth. At the baptism of Jesus in Mark 1:11 the voice declares Jesus to be the son, but there is no virgin birth in Mark. The deceleration of Jesus as the son of God is based on God's declarations about the Kings of Israel and Judah of 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; Ps 110:1. To call Jesus the son of God is not the same thing as saying he is divine. It is to say that he is from the line of David (cf. Rom 1.3) and therefore the Messiah, but again, saying he is the Messiah does not mean he is divine. I think too many people confuse the designation of Jesus as the "son of God" as meaning that Jesus therefore has divine DNA, and that is not necessarily the meaning of the phrase in the Bible. Perhaps James will want to jump in here since he has done far more work on this than me.
ReplyDeleteA well constructed and scripturally sound comment.
DeleteThe idea of Jesus as "son of God" does seem to be linked to his virginal conception at least in Luke 1:35. While there is no virgin birth or nativity account in Mark, it is possible Mark was aware of this belief since he refers to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3) rather than "the son of Joseph" (Matt 13:55). Calling a man after his mother seems to carry an undertone of illegitimacy here. The title "son of God" while definitely a well known descriptor in the OT and 2nd Temple Judaism does take a special nuance at least in John where Jesus is "monogenes", the one and only, one of a kind, unique Son of God. In the Synoptics especially in what is believed to be part of Q, Jesus declares (in typical Johannine style) himself to be the Son who alone knows the Father and vice versa (Matt 11:27 / Luke 10:22). On the other hand in Mark when Jesus is asked at his trial before the Sanhedrin if he is the "Messiah, the son of the blessed one" he responds in the affirmative and is summarily condemned for "blasphemy" (Mark 14:61-64). Why would Jesus' admission to being the Messiah be blasphemous if being son of God was merely another way of identifying the Messiah? Is it possible that the sonship of Jesus has taken on another deeper meaning?
ReplyDeleteTony Costa
Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God? I think that is a core, essential (not optional) part of being a Christian and the fact that the Bible says it is a virginal birth, makes it a virginal birth. Isaiah 7:14 prophesied a virginal birth and NT texts such as Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38,46-56; 2:1-7; Mark 6:3; Matthew 1:16; John 1:13; 8:41 all refer to a virginal birth. I think it is a fundamental view in order to be a genuine Christian. God could have miraculously just as easily kept Jesus sinless without being born of a virgin but that is not what Scripture says. The Virginal Birth was to draw attention to the fact that God had come in the flesh which is the greatest miracle in the world with the resurrection. That is why Simeon said he could finally rest in peace. Our God didn't just start the universe and leave it to run on its own like a giant clock maker but He inserted Himself into history as a human at birth. I know the question is in order to be a Christian do you have to believe in the virginal birth? Only God is the judge of a man's heart. The Bible very clearly points to a virginal birth in the O.T. and it very clearly states it in the N.T. To not believe that is to question the validity of the Bible and that to me is a very dangerous thing to do for any Christian.
ReplyDeleteI hear the thief on the cross made it in. I'd guess his beliefs and theology weren't all that developed or extensive.
ReplyDeleteso...what does it take to be a real Christian?
ReplyDeleteA christian is one, who believes that Jesus is the messiah, who died on the cross for the sin of the world and was raised three days and three nights after the event, to immortality and never ending life. They believe that he now has the power to raised the dead at the last day.
DeleteThe thief on the cross was not compelled to believe in a virgin birth, a myth which developed after the passing of the apostolic ministry.
ReplyDeleteSince everyone said it better than I can I will simply post a quote from Jurgen Moltmann and be done with it.
ReplyDelete"According to today's understanding of things, talk about Christ's 'virgin birth' through Mary dangerously narrows down his humanity, if the virgin birth is taken to mean that a supernatural-human process takes the place of a human-natural one. We [cannot] see any longer why Jesus as Son of God should come into the world in a different way from anyone else. If according to John 1.12 the point of comparison with the birth of the Son of God is to be found in the rebirth of believers from the Spirit into divine sonship and daughterhood, then, and then especially, we do not have to assume any supernatural intervention. We should rather view the whole process of the human begetting, conception and birth of Jesus Christ as the work of the Holy Spirit. Christ's birth from the Spirit is a statement about Christ's relationship to God, or God's relationship to Christ. It does not have to be linked with a genealogical assertion."
- in The Way of Jesus Christ
I totally agree with Bryan. God is Spirit, and Jesus was fully human and fully God (His Spirit). The virgin birth makes Jesus a hybrid as found in mythology. To be fully man and fully God Jesus would have needed both a human mother and father, a normal upbringing and to be filled with the Holy Spirit on God's timeline e.g. as it states, on baptism. To read the scriptures with an open mind it is clear that the record in Matthew is suspect.
ReplyDeleteOk so I am a few years late......women's rights just started happening in USA around the 70s I mean real rights....women in Middle East Jerusalem area are still under word of men. So how is this even became a topic? I can't see Mary back in the day doing wash and telling her girlfriends all about her magical seed. Really I makes no scents other then some men's big fat fantasy's. I think a true person of Christian or really any spirtual faith should love thy neighbor, teach a person to fish and break bread. This whole world we be better off if everyone got into this pay it forward thinking.
ReplyDeleteWhy did God have to make Jesus birth super natural ? Firstly why did God not just use Mary and not a couple that are (married). Because if they are married then by someone else impregnating Mary would be Deut 23: 2 ...one of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of God.....to the 10th generation." And if they were as married and Mary had a child from someone else then that would be Adultery. Livticus 11:10...put to death... ?
ReplyDeleteWhy did John the Baptist receive the Holy Spirit from his mothers womb Mathew 1 (was John the Baptist supernaturally born? ? Jesus did not he received the Holy Spirit at his Baptism ?
Why would God do something that he chained the angels that left their first estate till day of judgement. Sons of God took the daughters of men ?
Then Jesus could not be a Jew
Then Jesus could not wilful bible prophecy (Seed of David, Mathew 1:1 : 2 Tim 2:8, one can not use the genealogies of Mary as she was from the line of Nathan (not the line of kings) not Davids line being the line of Kings.
Jesus was fully man Hebrews 10:17... therefore fully human in EVERY ASPECT ..now if we say supernatural then NOT fully man. Fully man happens man and woman have sex and a child is formed. No outside party involved?
If we look at Isaiah 7:14 we see that Isaiah had the same prophecy as Mary about a virgin giving birth to a son. But if we look at verse 3 Isaiah had already a son, he goes to his wife and lays with her and she conceives. She is called a virgin but she had already a child?
When the spiritual leaders wanted to stone him for saying HE is the son of God? Why did Jesus not say read the scriptures and speak to Mary I was born of a virgin.
Sorry just a question If Jesus was born as the bible says from the seed of David and Joseph was his real Father.
ReplyDeleteIf Jesus never sinned from birth was he not the perfect lamb? Sin is transgression of the law, Jesus never transgressed the law.
If Jesus never transgressed the law so Jesus never become like us as sheep. Because we like sheep have stayed gone astray: we have turned, everyone of us to his own way, And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" Isaiah 53:6
Jesus never went astray, Jesus never transgressed the Law ?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe God is all powerful and created the heavens and the earth..... why would you doubt a virgin birth??? All of us, being descendants of Adam, have inherited sin. How then can you believe Jesus was conceived under natural circumstances and still be the perfect lamb of God? Jesus isn't called sinless just because he didn't transgress against the law.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if you believe in God's holy power, and that the bible is the living word of God... how then can you decide which parts you believe and which parts you don't. It is certainly natural to have questions and doubts. But to flat out say the virgin birth isn't real, means you don't believe Jesus is God's 1 and only begotten son. At that point you would have to believe that Jesus was just a very good Jew who received the spirit and did the work of God. You would in essence be denying the Holy trinity
The bible warns about those who detract or add to the scriptures. If you believe that part of the bible is false, then you are basically saying the bible is fallible. If something is only mentioned one time in the bible, its still important/true because it was in the bible to begin with. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe about God. That's a very dangerous and very slippery slope.