Posted on 12/08/2012 7:18:22 AM PST by HarleyD
Reprinted by permission of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary's Faith Pulpit, December, 1999.
The virgin birth refers to Mary's miraculous conception of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, without any male participation, so that, though the birth process was not unlike that of other humans, Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was born. This Biblical doctrine should be distinguished from the Roman Catholic tenets of Mary's immaculate conception and her perpetual virginity (Erickson, 179).
The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
According to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was "preserved free from all stain of original sin" (Ott, 199). Since she was subject to the necessity of original sin, she stood in need of redemption; but since she was redeemed from the moment of conception, she was thereby preserved from original sin. Her redemption, therefore, according to this dogma, was more perfect than that experienced by any other human. The dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, and a Biblical basis for the belief is argued from texts such as Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28, 41. Reading these passages, one is left at a loss as to how such a doctrine could find Biblical support were it not for underlying Marian presuppositions.
The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity
The Catholic tenet of the perpetual virginity of Mary holds that she was "a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ" (Ott, 203). Accordingly, Mary was not only a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus but remained so throughout her life. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church "the deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin" (CCC, 499). Catholics officially promulgate the idea that "Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity" (Ott, 205). A few, the Schoolmen in particular, theorized that Jesus' birth did not pain Mary, nor did it nullify her "physical virginity." For the Schoolmen, then, Jesus was born miraculously in a way analogous to His emergence from the sealed tomb or to His going through the shut doors (i.e., Jesus was born directly through Mary's abdominal wall). The Scriptures, on the other hand, describe Mary as the one who "brought forth" her Son; they say nothing about a miraculous birthing of Jesus.
Magisterial Catholic theologians propound the concept that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth. For Augustine and others, Biblical support for this comes from an inference based on Luke 1:34, where Mary's question is taken as "a resolve of constant virginity on the ground of special Divine enlightenment" (Ott, 207). Others look to John 19:26 and infer that Mary had no other children but Jesus. However, the aggregate voice of Scripture contradicts the dogma of perpetual virginity with the repeated mention of Jesus' siblings: Matthew 12:46, 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14and Galatians 1:19. In addition, Matthew 1:25 could hardly be clearer on this point: Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." The words till (see also 1:18) and firstborn (see also Luke 2:7) provide a double proof against the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is of little wonder that one Catholic catechism reads, "The perpetual virginity of Mary is not revealed truth which can be clearly demonstrated from the New Testament without the light of tradition" (Lawler, 107).
The Biblical Doctrine of the Virgin Birth
Therefore, we reaffirm the Biblical doctrine that Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit apart from the cooperation of man and that Mary was most certainly a virgin when He was born, although Jesus' birth was not unlike that of other humans. Two primary Christmas passages further explain this Biblical doctrine.
The first passage, Matthew 1:18-25 indicates that Mary's pregnancy was due to the activity of the Holy Spirit (1:20). It also indicates that Mary remained a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus (1:25). The other passage, Luke 1:26-38, teaches that Mary was a descendant of King David and that she was a virgin (1:27). After the angel told Mary that she would bear the Son of the Most High, Mary asked a perfectly logical question, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (1:34). The angel answered, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee;" for this reason, Mary's holy Offspring would be called the Son of God (1:35).
The Modernist Denial of the Virgin Birth
Modernist theologians feel that the doctrine of the virgin birth is not important; they conclude that the doctrine of the virgin birth is a theologoumenon, i.e., a story reflecting the faith of the early church in its attempt to reinforce its Christological myths. Most treacherous are those Modernists who claim to hold the doctrine of the virgin birth, though they actually deny it by redefining the term as a reference to the incarnation, with no affirmation of the biological virginity of Mary. Contrary to the liberals' condescending dismissal of the doctrine, we reaffirm the importance of the doctrine and its integral position in a Biblically-based systematic theology (see EDT, 1143-45).
The Virgin Birth and Scripture
The doctrine of the virgin birth is closely tied to the truthfulness and authority of Scripture. If one denies the virgin birth, then one is denying the straightforward teaching of the Bible. If one denies the virgin birth, then he must conclude that the Bible is not telling the truth and that it lacks authority in this area of doctrine. Machen wisely observed that "if the Bible is regarded as being wrong in what it says about the birth of Christ, then obviously the authority of the Bible, in any high sense, is gone" (Machen, 383).
The Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ
The doctrine of the virgin birth is also linked with belief in the deity of Christ. Frame writes, "While we cannot say dogmatically that God could enter the world only through the virgin birth, surely the incarnation is a supernatural event if it is anything. To eliminate the supernatural from this event is inevitably to compromise the divine dimension of it" (EDT, 1145; see also Machen, 387-92).
The Virgin Birth and the Humanity of Christ
Similarly, the truth of the virgin birth is connected to the doctrine of the humanity of Christ. The Apostle Paul alluded to this truth when he wrote that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Ignatius, a second-century martyr, argued forcefully against the Docetists, whom he called "certain unbelievers," by stressing that Jesus truly was of the Davidic line, that He was truly nailed to the cross, that He truly suffered, and that He truly rose from the dead. Ignatius was also "fully persuaded" that Jesus Christ was "truly born of a virgin" (AF, 156-157).
The Virgin Birth and the Sinlessness of Christ
Having been born of the virgin Mary, Jesus was human Offspring. Having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and overshadowed by the power of the Most High, Jesus was holy Offspring—the sinless Son of God. Therefore, the doctrine of the virgin birth impacts one's view of the sinlessness of Christ. When Mary "conceived, she passed on her human nature to the theanthropic person, but she was prevented by the Holy Spirit from transmitting a sin nature" (Gromacki, 125).
The Virgin Birth and the Promised Messiah
The doctrine of Jesus as the Christ, or Messiah, also depends upon the virgin birth. The Messiah was promised to come as a descendant of King David (2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Chronicles 17:14; Psalm 89:3-4, 26-37; Isaiah 9:7; Matthew 9:27, 12:23, 20:30, 21:9, 22:41-45; Luke 1:32-33; see also Ezekiel 34:23-24). In fulfillment of these promises, Jesus was born "the son of David" (Matthew 6). The Old Testament, however, not only portrays the Messiah as a descendant of David, but also mentions a curse against all of David's royal seed descending through the line of one of Judah's final kings. This king was Jehoiachin (also known as Coniah), and his wicked reign is described in 2 Kings 24:8-17 and
2 Chronicles 36:9-10. He was so wicked that God pronounced a curse against him: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22:30). This presents a problem because, though Jesus' lineage traces back to David and Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), according to Matthew, Jesus' lineage comes through the cursed "Jechonias'" (Matthew 1:11). The virgin birth provides the wonderful solution to this dilemma. Matthew records Jesus' legal genealogy through Joseph, His adopted father (Matthew 1:16), and so Matthew establishes Jesus' legal right to the throne of David. Luke, on the other hand, records Jesus' biological genealogy through Mary. Mary too was a descendant of David, but not through Solomon and Jehoiachin. Instead, her line traces back to a son of David through a different son, Nathan (Luke 3:31). In the sovereign plan of God, the Messiah has the legal right to David's throne without its accompanying curse.
The Virgin Birth and Salvation
The doctrine of the virgin birth is also closely tied with our own salvation. If Jesus had been tainted with sin, then He could not have been our sufficient Sacrifice. On the other hand, if Jesus had not been born of Mary, and so had not been the Man, Christ Jesus, then He could not have died, nor could He have been a suitable sacrificial substitute as a Man for men. Christ became human in a miraculous way. The provision of salvation, therefore, is all of God and none of man.
It is clear, then, not only that the Bible does teach the doctrine of the virgin birth and that this doctrine differs from Catholic teachings, but it is also clear that the doctrine of the virgin birth is an integral element of orthodox theology. The virgin birth touches upon the doctrines of Scripture, Christ, and salvation. For this reason, we reaffirm our belief in this doctrine, we teach it, and we call on others to do the same. It is a doctrine that should be proclaimed—especially during the Christmas season. Ignatius wrote of "the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord" as "three mysteries to be cried aloud" (AF110,141-142). We firmly believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Throughout the year, but especially during this Christmas season, let us cry it aloud!
Without an Immaculate womb to house the sinless baby Jesus we would have no redemption on the Cross. Remember God doesn’t have time like we do. Mary was forgiven her original sin IN ADVANCE by Jesus because she was chosen as his Mother.
No sexuality was involved — it is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Have you read Luke Chapter 1 recently? You might want to again.
**Mother of God**
That phrase is not found in scripture.
**her wish to remain a virgin.**
Where in the Word is that request mentioned?
Why the great effort to refute that Jesus had half brothers and half sisters through Mary? The passage in Luke 8:3 makes no mention of the parents of the ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of Jesus, that you folks say are cousins.
Mary was given a great honor in giving birth to the Christ-child, but she didn’t make more of God,
didn’t make the soul of the Son,
didn’t raise him from the dead,
didn’t change his body into a glorified body,
or cause him to ascend up to heaven bodily.
She didn’t make him both Lord and Christ either. God did that. (Acts 2:36)
She didn’t even have to do ANYTHING to make herself pregnant. God performed the miracle in her body. She simply accepted his decree with gladness and humility.
Believe whatever ‘traditions’ you want, but I prefer to stick with plain scriptural facts.
**Without an Immaculate womb**
Hmmm....must not have been immaculate after the birth, because after the ‘days of her purification’ she offered to the priest the sacrifices required by the law.
**Mary was forgiven her original sin IN ADVANCE by Jesus**
Chapter and verse please. Mary acknowledged her low estate, and praised God for giving her the honor, but no mention of her being sinless is made. Mary’s blood didn’t mingle or circulate with the babe’s blood.
If you ignore sacred tradition, you ignore the scripture you claim to revere.
If there is no immaculate conception, there is no atonement by Jesus. It’s that simple.
If Mary is not the mother of God, there is likewise no atonement. You really do seem to be missing the critical point.
The Catholic teaching is that Mary is who she is only because Jesus is who He is.
Peace be with you.
The Catholic teaching is that Mary is who she is only because Jesus is who He is.
Peace be with you.
Missing the point? No, for God was IN Christ reconciling himself to the world. Not a ‘second person’ of God crying out to a ‘first person’ of God, while dying on the cross. Diety doesn’t die. The Father IN Christ is what made him God then, is what raised him from the dead, and is what makes him God now.
The book of John shows Jesus Christ teaching that everything he possessed was from the Father; most notably chapters 14,15, and parts of chapters 3,4,5,6,16, and his prayer to the Father in 17.
Your organization takes eating and drinking the ‘flesh and blood’ of Christ literally, yet he explains it’s not the flesh literally at the end of that passage; it’s his words, it’s the spirit that quickeneth. He offers drink from himself in John 7:37-39; not blood, but the drink that is the infilling of the Holy Ghost. For he again points this out in John 14, telling his disciples of the coming of the Comforter, and that “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I IN you.”
Mary’s body housed the babe, but God made the babe pure; the babe’s blood was his, and his alone. Mary didn’t make the soul, didn’t make the Father that dwells in him, didn’t raise the body from the grave and glorify it, and didn’t cause it to ascend to heaven.
Jesus was careful to not elevate her in front of the witnesses, addressing her face to face as ‘woman’. I follow his example. And I certainly don’t pray to anyone that is ‘asleep in Christ’ and waiting for the second resurrection.
Mary most certainly did have a decision in the matter:
Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word.
The emboldened words are her positive response in which she said "yes" to God. Mary is not an automaton or a piece of meat. She played an active role in our salvation through her humility. She was the very first follower of Christ.
Mary can be understood as the Mother of God through this simple deduction: Jesus is both God and man. Mary is the mother of both Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the son of man. Therefore, if Jesus is God, then Mary is the mother of God.
Give my church CREDIT, because it gave to the word the Bible as we know it.
Also :
“Jesus was careful to not elevate her in front of the witnesses, addressing her face to face as ‘woman’. I follow his example. And I certainly don’t pray to anyone that is ‘asleep in Christ’ and waiting for the second resurrection.”
All that CHANGED when at the foot of the cross, Jesus gave his mother to the beloved apostle John as his mother and his mother Mary was given John, meaning that she who was Jesus’s FIRST disciple, would become the spiritual mother of ALL Christian believers.
When I read a number of the responses to threads like these, it makes me wonder, why still the arguments over “details” of Christian scripture? It is stuff like this that simply gives “ammo” to those who attack Christians.
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make.
All Mary did was agree with what God's angel told Mary would happen to her. If Mary would have said, "No" would that have null and void God's message.
I would compare Mary's response to Jonah's response. God brought Jonah around to His way of thinking. Had Mary responded like Jonah, God would have brought her around as well.
Mary can be understood as the Mother of God through this simple deduction: Jesus is both God and man. Mary is the mother of both Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the son of man.
Wrong. While Mary might be the mother of Jesus in His humanity (son of man), she is certainly NOT the mother of Jesus in His divinity (son of God). God (and Christ) exist long before Mary ever came into being. This is the flawed reasoning in the Immaculate Conception.
Geez... talk about missing my whole point completely
You need to spend some time reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
You talk abou tthis NONSENSE as if it had real meaning and mattered.
What matters is living your life in a manner taught by God and Christ, not arguing amonsts ourselves over whether mom was doing it with Joseph.
It is something that can never and will never be known- so why discuss it? Are you goign to convince anyone that the way YOU believe is so much better than the way THEY believe?
We feel compelled to ask ourselves: Why did Christ really want to be born of a virgin? It was certainly possible for him to have been born of a normal marriage. That would not have affected his divine Sonship
No, it was not possible for Christ to have been born in a normal marriage as the He would have been tainted with the sin of Adam. Adam broke the covenant with God and his decendants are stained with this brokeness:
Christ had to come to us apart from Adam through a virgin birth.
I have their collection on the shelf. Some of their work is very good. Some, I’m sure, you would not even agree with. And, much of their work on the atonement the Catholic Church has rejected outright claiming they were not well informed. So that is a very weak point.
I’m done. You have no desire to have a meaningful dialogue.
That was a pretty complete rehearsal of heresies recognizable to almost every Christian in the Church’s first millennium and a half. Your peculiar beliefs are, to say the least, way way out there.
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.