I was reminded today that theology is a lot like a Jenga tower, you pull out one little piece and the entire thing falls apart. In Sunday School this morning we were talking about the Virgin Birth of Christ. There are, apparently, a large portion (almost half according to a survey study done by UC Berkley) of seminary students who deny the truth of the Virgin Birth of Christ. Rob Bell, a well-known christian youth speaker, in his book Velvet Elvis argues that it doesn't matter whether or not one believes in the Virgin Birth.
However, if we break down the doctrine of the Virgin Birth then we will see that this is not true. If we deny the Virgin Birth then we also deny the inerrancy and authority of scripture. In this we lose our foundation for the truth and teaching of our religion. The truth if scripture is the foundation for all of our beliefs, it is (or should be) the central filter for our lives. If we lose the authority of scripture then we have no basis for any of our beliefs and we simply have a pick and choose religion. However, even if we can devise some means by which to retain the authority of scripture while denying the Virgin Birth (which we cannot) this is by no means the only central doctrine of theology that we lose.
We also lose the Deity of Christ. Christ is deity because he is the son of God, he is both fully man and fully God, this is because he was not born of the seed of man but formed within Mary by the Holy Spirit of God. If Mary was not a virgin then Christ had a human father, he was not the holy working of God but just another illegitimate son of a random man. If Christ was not God then he was not able to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of man, he was only able to pay for his own sins. If this were true then it means that we would have no savior. However, even were we to assume that Christ was still deity then we still lose the substitutionary atonement (the sacrifice of Christ on the cross).
If Mary was not a virgin then Christ inherited Adam's sinful nature. This would mean that Christ was not a perfect, sinless sacrifice. Even if we assume that Christ was, somehow, still deity even if Mary was not a virgin we still lose his ability to sacrifice himself for the sins of mankind. Furthermore if Mary was not a virgin this would mean that Christ was not born within the bounds of the law, he would have been illegitimate and therefore have no standing within Hebrew society. He would also not be a descendant of David, since Hebrew descent was traced through the father, and therefore he could not have been the Hebrew messiah.
From this we can see that we cannot remove our belief in the Virgin Birth without losing the whole of our beliefs along with it. However, is this only true for the Virgin Birth or is it true for any aspect of theology. If we take apart any given fundamental of the faith (The inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the second coming of Christ, etc.) then we will see the same effect. Theology is similar to a jenga tower, if you pull out any one piece the entire thing crumbles in on itself. Seeing this we must understand that any view of theology that adds or subtracts elements to what is presented in scripture must be rejected as untrue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"If Mary was not a virgin then Christ inherited Adam's sinful nature."
ReplyDeleteWhat about Mary, did she not have Adam's sinful nature? Did not Christ inherit that fallen nature through her? If he did not, how does He identify with us? If he did not, how could he conquer sin? If he did not, how was he 'fully man, fully God'?
The fall in Genesis three shows that it was Adam who held the responsibility for obedience, not Eve. So it is commonly believed that the sin nature is passed on through the male. Further Christ could not have had a sin nature and still be free of sin. Remember that Adam, as the model for man, did not have a sin nature before he fell. Therefore Christ, as the second Adam according to Paul, would not have needed a sin nature to be fully man. The sin nature is our own addition, not a product of the creation. The fallen state is not our natural state. Scripture teaches, in Hebrews four, that Christ was tempted in every way as we are. However the sin nature is separate from temptation. We have all been tempted to do something that we held no real desire for. A good example that I was given was that of being left alone with a rare beanie baby (which, as collectors items, can be with a lot of money). The temptation to steal the beanie baby is there, however I hold no desire for the beanie baby, my sin nature does not urge to steal it. We all have sins that we are more prone to fall to, that is the product of our fallen nature, however that is not the temptation to sin.
ReplyDelete