I've heard recently that some leaders in the current emergent church movement have stated that the virgin birth is not an essential doctrine. It seems the argument stems from the translation of the word virgin from Isaiah 7:14. Some contend the word can be better translated maiden. Even if that is the case, the New Testament makes it clear how the word is to be interpreted in the case of Mary.
Luke 2:26-38 is Mary's dialogue with the angel Gabriel. She questions the statement regarding the possibility of having a child since she has never had sexual relations. King James, I know no man. In Matthew 1:23-25 where the Isaiah passage is quoted, it says that Joseph kept her a virgin until after Jesus was born.
What happens to John 3:16 without a virgin birth? God so loved the world that He gave the son of the local milkman, or traveling goat salesman, or the sly census taker, or even Joseph. How does that fulfill the redemption story? A pretend perfect sacrifice, or a reasonable facsimile. God gave the perfect lamb. A man whose origin is in the creative work of God, much like Adam. Who having been saved from the fall by being born of the Holy Spirit, maintains His perfection and willingly offers Himself as the perfect sacrifice, required by the law, to purchase our freedom from the curse of sin by making full payment for it.
Some theology is trying to avoid some "embarrassing" doctrines of Christianity, and is trying to sidestep truth in order to be more acceptable to the world's embrace. I agree that Christians do not have to be mean-spirited toward homosexuals, abortionists and such. But to abandon truth to appear more "mainstream", reasonable, loving or acceptable (whatever the argument may be) leaves the message of the gospel without the power to save.
Here is the clear Biblical teaching, Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary. He is the Son of God!!
Monday, May 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
