Since I’m not reposting/updating the “Desanitizing Christmas” series this year (though I’ll likely do some updates next year to work in some objections an EO friend of mine has with my contention that Mary did not continue to be a virgin after Jesus’ birth, among other issues), here’s a quick ‘toon that hits on several of the issues I’ve touched upon in the past:
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
34 Comments(+Add)
So what are your thoughts with someone who claims Mary might not have been a virgin before Jesus was conceived?
Here is the post.
Second level behind that video: communicating truth and debunking fiction without condescension to, or condemnation of, those that hold to the wrong ideas.
The ironic thing, Brendt, is that we’re going to show that in our Christmas Eve service – JUST BEFORE singing “Away in a Manger”…
Obviously Calvinist drivel. “God called the Elect to the manger” and all.
and he did say “this day” which could be another retooning moment – but i guess nothing is perfect.
#1 From Tony Jones’ post:
What sayest thou? I address it here at length, but I wonder what the point of view is on the importance of this in regards to the salvation story and christology in the PM world…..
i see nothing wrong with the post by jones. he clearly delineates his belief in the virgin birth. what’s the prob?
The word creating, indicating that God somehow created Jesus as opposed to Jesus being eternal. That is Arianism.
seriously pastorboy, your selective quoting and messaging is as disingenuous as the new york times.
again – when will i learn not to drink coffee and read pastorboy…
now, where did i put that screen cleaner?
this is also a different issue. your post accuses him of doubting the biblical account of the virgin birth – and he not only does no such thing – he actively affirms it.
you cannot weasel out of this nyt methodology by switching topics.
i call you to quote someone honestly!
Neil, I did quote almost the entire blog post where he stated what he wrote. I answered each piece. I am not being disengenuous, again, I addressed each paragraph and my issues with it.
All Jones is saying in his piece is that the virgin birth has less to do with Jesus’ sinlessness and more to do with showing God’s miraculous power. He does seem to be saying that he doesn’t place the doctrine of the virgin birth at the base of his doctrinal wall as some do, but he does still affirms it. I fail to see what the issue is.
As far as him using the word “creating”, it’s pretty obvious that he’s referring to Jesus’ physical body. I don’t know how someone could argue that his actual physical body always existed. Saying that would actually kind of make the whole idea of the incarnation a moot point then, wouldn’t it?
It really gets down to the dual natures of Christ. He was fully God and fully human. Insofar as to how His human experience on earth was, I’d say it wasn’t any different than ours (actually, we have things a lot better from the perspective of physical comforts and conveniences), but His body developed like a normal human being would. I guess from a physical standpoint the thing that set Him apart was the resurrection, but even that is as a signpost to the “new normal”, i.e., it’s what those humans who are in Him can expect.
this is a classic example of modernist systematic theology elevating an interpretations to the status of biblical truth.
Q: “why the virgin birth”
A: (according to some) – because sin is passed through the male, therefore…. blah blah blah
OK – fine. that very well could be. but it is extra biblical speculation. is it interesting – sure. is it fun to speculate – of course. is it a biblical truth – no!
so to question the “why” of the virgin birth while affirming it – IS NOT placing doubt over faith.
it is, in fact, being more honest with the faith than those who elevate their speculations to “faith” status.
Also, regarding the view that sin is passed down through the man’s seed, I’d say that’s a view that based in the ancient’s notions of biology, that saw women really not much more than baby incubators and that babies were the complete result of the man’s “seed”. It seems to me that if you’re going to take the view that Jesus’ sinlessless was related somehow to the biology of the virgin birth, given what we understand now about biology, you have to pretty much have to say that Mary was sinless as well.
#12
You should write Ken Silva, he used your first and last name, John Chisham. He also named your church. I know you said you didn’t like that and that you would call anyone out who did it.
yes you did – except for his very clear conclusion affirming the virgin birth.
further, your objections are petty and, most likely – wrong.
let’s look at your objections:
1) you say he elevates doubt over faith and aligns himself with satan: BULL! he no where denies anything found in the biblical text. he simply questions the reasons created by systematic theologians. he know where comes close to saying “has god really said…” – he does, though, say “has [insert theologian] really said…” you apparently missed this important distinction.
2) you contrast the pregnancies of elizabeth and mary then write the former was miraculous, but significantly different from the conception of Jesus: fine. jones no where say they were. he includes sarah, elizabeth, and mary in a list of miraculous births – but he does not equate them. in typical form, you are seizing on something he did not say, and pouring in your own nefarious meaning.
3) you accuse jones of trying to cheapen the creative act of the Holy Spirit by reducing it to God’s involvement: and now you know his heart? how do you know his intent was to cheapen the creative act? [WAIT - did you say "create" apparently you too are an arian]. if you think it cheapens the act – say so – but you cannot know that this is what he was trying to do.
4) you accuse him of sounding like arianism: maybe he is, maybe he is not – did you ask him before making your accusation? and you yourself said the holy spirit did a creative work inside of Mary? so are you arian as well?
none of these objections carry any weight.
and as i pointed out – pastorboy used the very same word in the very same manner…
#16 He does not do it in a mocking and condescending way, Joe.
He asked and I gave him permission.
It sounded as though Jones was saying create like the Arians use create, that is, that Jesus was God’s first creation. It is far different to say that God the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and did a creative work in sending the Logos to this earth.
both talking about god doing something miraculous in the creation of a body for jesus.
it is clear that you are only basing this complaint on a preconceived (pun intended) dislike for toney jones.
a primary rule must be to allow people to speak for themselves and address what they actually say – not what you want them to say.
what is gos?
where is the pun? what is preconceined?
i guess jones also thinks jesus was not sinless since he said “I think that God is capable of creating and maintaining Jesus and a sinless person”
notice he differentiates between jesus AND a sinless person. clearly denying the sinlessness of jesus with this contrast!
[hey, it is both easy and fun to parse people's words into things they never intended to say]
fixed it.
Denying that the virgin birth is a lynchpin in redemptive truth is not one small step towrd apostasy, it’s a giant leap. And his prefix phrase “I think God is capable…” can be ended with anything.
“I think God is capable of saving everyone without Jesus”
“I think God is capable of recieving a human sacrifice for sins”
This virgin birth teaching is not some small ambiguous verse in Job, it is a clear teaching in Luke and a clear prophecy in Isaiah. Jones is a heretic, plain and simple.
God is capable of using Satan to preach the gospel.
Jones doesn’t deny the virgin birth. He’s simply writing about it’s implications to a specific theology.
And, actually, I believe He has many times… Actually there were some church fathers who saw the cross as God sort of “using” Satan for His purposes.
But Jones doesn’t deny the VB in the article. His primary questioning of it wasn’t its miraculous nature, but rather the traditional, systematic explanation. That isn’t heretical, but just uncharitable reading…
not only does jones not deny the virgin birth, i don’t think jones even denies the importance of the virgin birth. he just raises the question and denies one certain systematic answer to “why is it important?”
Believing that the virgin birth is not foundational to Christian teaching, is denying it, regardless if you “say” you believe it. It is important because the Scriptures clearly teach it. What other aspect make something “important”.
These men are so clever and doctrinally ambidextrous and wicked. But they have legions of defenders whose track record of seeing everything from them as a piece of the puzzle regardless of the jagged edges that cannot fit into Scripture – if that matters.
There is sort of an irony in evangelicalism where on one hand people will say that Christianity is all about having a personal relationship with Christ, but on the other hand they say you can’t follow Christ until you believe certain things about Him first.
I guess the situation that I can imagine is someone coming to me and saying something like, “I’ve been reading the Gospels, and I think I’m interested in following Jesus, but there are still a few things that I have a hard time believing, the virgin birth being one of them. Can I still be a Christian?”
In that situation, do you stick to your guns and say, “well, sorry, you have to believe the virgin birth to be a Christian”, or do you simply say “follow Christ, and we work out the details along the way”. It seems to me that to say that a person has to believe the virgin birth as a requirement to be a Christian really is a bit odd. Now I do believe the virgin birth is important for several reasons, and I would eventually get into those with a new Christian, but I think saying it’s a “lynchpin” is a bit of an overstatement.
so even though he says “the virginal conception of Jesus signals that his direct progenitor is God’s Spirit, and we have since worshipped him as the incarnation of Logos (i.e., the second person of the Trinity)” and “So, for me, the virginity of Mary is…a testimony to the miraculous power of God’s Spirit and the anointing of Jesus that is confirmed at his baptism” – he really does not, cannot, believe it?
Phil – That is apples and oranges since Jones suggests those that deny the virgin birth can be considered “orthodox”. No where does he postulate the narrative you suggest.
But you guys will defend the greatest heresy with all sorts of what ifs unless it comes from the “orthodox” crowd. If you do not believe the virgin birth is foundational then you are not orthodox. Jones is an open heretic.
Next year Christ’s deity may well be an “elective”. You are partisan, as always.
wow… just wow! if this came from some drive-by odm it would not be so surprising, but seriously, all we are doing is having a discussion on a blog article and the next thing ya know wer’e a bunch of partisans willing to give up the deity of christ…
geesh!
Well Jones does say the doctrine is foundational, it’s just in a different way. I also think there’s a difference between saying something is foundational and saying that it’s something that must be believed before someone can become a Christian.
As far as heresy, I don’t really understand what doctrinal line Jones is crossing here. He’s affirming the virgin birth. I guess simply because he refuses to outright condemn those who do not affirm it, that makes him a heretic. Is that the reasoning?