The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

[Jimmytwoguns]

Recently one of my kids has just finished an Higher Examination in Religious Education at school here in Scotland.

They go to a normal state school where Protestant, Catholic, Moslem, etc go, but the large majority by far are nominally at any rate Protestant, probably 85%, Catholics about 14% Muslem 1%.

Anyway, she brought home her text book for her old dad to help her and I noted with shock the “official” textbook for the course and exam states that as, far as the Presbyterian Church of Scotland is concerned (this is the by far the largest so called Christian denomination in this country, not some tiny wee sect, but the “State Denomination”) the belief in the miraculous Virgin Birth of Christ, is not one which must be accepted by someone in order to be a member of their church. I was staggered!!!

I believe this is frankly undermining the very foundations of the Christian faith. Perhaps many Protestants would be appalled at this, but for a text book to state this openly about the Church of Scotland means surely they must have had their approval. This is one of the many reasons we must fight so strongly to support the Catholic Church which I believe keeps the Faith of the Apostles.

I’d be very interested to know what other Catholics and those from Non Catholic denominations think of this matter and if they believe that the Virgin Birth of Christ is a central, undeniable, fundamental and essential belief, in order for one to be a Christian. Or if it is merely, as the book claimed, a matter of personal belief whether to accept this doctrine or not.

If I may make so bold, I don’t want this thread bogged down with references to what some claim to be original texts, re whether the word in the Old Testament prophesing a virgin giving birth, or in the New Testament describing Mary, means "young girl, or a virgin. I think we can take it as a given that young girls in those times and circumstances, and in particular this young girl, set apart by God to play a vital role in our redemption, and unmarried, would have been a virgin in any event. I’d just lke a straight answer to a straight question.

Is a belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ essential to being a Christian. I think I know what the Catholics will say, and trust it will coincide with mine. But what about the others?

God bless

Jimmy Two Guns

 

[NotWorthy]

I believe this is frankly undermining the very foundations of the Christian faith. Perhaps many Protestants would be appalled at this, but for a text book to state this openly about the Church of Scotland means surely they must have had their approval. This is one of the many reasons we must fight so strongly to support the Catholic Church which I believe keeps the Faith of the Apostles.

You are correct in your shock and outrage. I would just double check to make sure the book is questioning Jesus’ virginal conception and not Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (as Catholics correctly teach).

I don’t think that denying Mary’s PV would be outrageous for their faith, but Matthew is quite clear in showing that Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus’ birth *"*When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus."

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Hi Notworthy,

No, it had nothing to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity, nor her immaculate conception. In any event, as the chapter concerned was not comparing the beliefs of the Church of Scotland to any other denomination.these topics would not arise.

It was the Virgin Birth of Christ which was the issue. I quite realise you want me to check, ‘cause you’'re as shocked as I was that an official examination textbook talking about a mainstream Presbyterian Church would state this, but it did.

God bless

JTG’S

 

[Christy_Beth]

Have you talked with anyone from the school district? Maybe you can contact other parents and their reaction to that teaching. If there are others who are as outraged as you are, maybe you could go as a group to the school district. They may listen to a group quicker than to a single person. I pray the they will be reasonable in their response to this.

 

[peary]

Recently one of my kids has just finished an Higher Examination in Religious Education at school here in Scotland.

They go to a normal state school where Protestant, Catholic, Moslem, etc go, but the large majority by far are nominally at any rate Protestant, probably 85%, Catholics about 14% Muslem 1%.

Anyway, she brought home her text book for her old dad to help her and I noted with shock the “official” textbook for the course and exam states that as, far as the Presbyterian Church of Scotland is concerned (this is the by far the largest so called Christian denomination in this country, not some tiny wee sect, but the “State Denomination”) the belief in the miraculous Virgin Birth of Christ, is not one which must be accepted by someone in order to be a member of their church. I was staggered!!!

The largest Presbyterian denomination in America, the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA), has long tolerated ministers and elders who reject and deny fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith taught in Scripture, such as the virgin birth of Christ. One of the very reasons the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), back in 1936 broke away from the PCUSA was their failure to affirm such basic Christian doctrine. So, the testimony of the OPC denomination is that it stands firmly upon the Scriptures and, by God’s grace, uphold the historic Christian faith.

 

[Lisdogan]

I was a conservtive (ie mainstream) Canadian Baptist, and became a Catholic today.

Problem with your question is that there is no Catholic CAF member likely to tell you there is any doubt about the Virgin Birth. It is one of the core elements of the faith. What individuals believe or perceive is sometimes different.

It is important to recognise that there is broad, eminent, and thoughtful discourse going on around the world about ‘miracles’ and ‘mysteries’ of Christendom which may frame some Christans’ understanding of some core elements of faith differently. I believe this does **not **mean that there will inevitably be any diminution of the quality of faith. In fact, for me, new understandings of old mysteries are incredibly fascinating, thought-provoking and occasionally persuasive.

As an educator, I believe that the course text is right to say what it does. Take a look at the evolution debate in the US to see what happens when arch-conservatives persist in standing their ground to the exclusion of any other.

Best I can do!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. 5 As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.

2 Timothy 4:1-5

 

[RobHom]

Here’s what I have done in those kinds of circumstances. I simply learned what I had to …to pass the test and then promptly forgot the material. After passing the test…it was no longer pertinent information for the future.

I would fear that in the environment that JTG lives in…getting a group of Catholics together to “protest”…against a state sponsored church that has set up a curriculum…could cause a severe backlash that could cause the situation to “degenerate”. In this case its best to let the sleeping dog lie…

Keep in mind, in the event of “questionable education”…it is incumbent upon the PARENTS…not the school system to make certain that the children are receiving the proper religious education.

Joe Kelly…that scripture was most appropriate to the issue and many others… Thank You!

 

[rcjones]

I would fear that in the environment that JTG lives in…getting a group of Catholics together to “protest”…against a state sponsored church that has set up a curriculum…could cause a severe backlash that could cause the situation to “degenerate”. In this case its best to let the sleeping dog lie…
!

I think this is wise advice. Let me demonstrate how one can have grace in it as well.

Often overlooked in the Genesis account of Adam’s sin is the tension between legalism and the intent of God’s word.

16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Let me play sea lawyer for the defense of Adam.
Your Honor, Adam is innocent since he did not eat “of” or “from” the tree, he ate “of” or “from Eve” who gave him the fruit. So he did not violate the letter of the law. If you had desired that he not eat of the fruit of the tree under any circumstances, then those conditions should have been enumerated in the giving of the law."

Such as:

“Man shall not eat the fruit, bark, leaves, roots, blossoms, nor any part not heretofore mentioned of the tree, under any circumstances particularly after harvesting directly from the tree, picking up fallen fruit from the ground about the tree, harvested by another and the possession thereof transferred to another, nor shall it be eaten under the pretense that it was harvested from another tree, the absence of the knowledge of which shall not be deemed an excuse nor used to mitigate the consequences.”

Evidence of this legalism can be found in Adam’s defense statement:
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

---

This point is made so that you may interpret the Text Book and the Presbyterian statement with grace.

Although the doctrine of the Trinity is central to the Christian faith, and since salvation is of the Lord and not of the knowledge of man, it is conceivable that the Presbyterians are not denying the doctrine, simply making knowledge of the doctrine not germane to membership in the church, recognizing that Christ may have grace on whomever he chooses.

Most things can be read and or heard legalistically, or the by the intent.

No doubt there are Presbyterians who read it both ways as well.

If we first assume the best, we don’t feel as compelled to take rash actions.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Robhom, I agree it’s up to the Parents. And you’re right - way to go Joe Kelley, bang on target!

Peary – very interesting about the PCUSA. I wondered if they’d be the same as over here.

Lisdogan, Sorry, I can’t agree. There may well be “a broad and thoughtful discourse going on … about miracles and mysteries of Christendom which may frame some Christians’ understanding of some core elements of faith differently.…”, but these Christians won’t be Catholics. Also, if the persons holding this discourse conclude that the supernatural miracles of Christ can be explained away as occurring in an understandable, natural manner, or are some type of Early Church myth, merely inserted in Sacred Scripture as they have some underlying meaning to teach us, or some such nonsense, then they conclude in error and entirely out-with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Further to claim as you do that “this does not mean that there will inevitably be any diminution of the quality of faith” is, in my submission, at best, naïve. We’re not talking about Adam and Eve and a literal interpretation of the creation of the Earth and Mankind as opposed to evolution. God could have created man any way he wished and it would still have been miraculous. We’re talking about the miracles and mysteries of Christ and that’s what they were and are. When Christ made the lame walk, they didn’t just have a touch of cramp. When he cured lepers, made the blind see, these were supernatural occurrences. So the CC taught and teaches. The Bible and The Church tell us Mary was a Virgin. Christ’s conception was a miraculous occurrence. End of Story. If someone does not believe that then they do not believe in a fundamental part of the Christian Faith, and certainly a Catholic in my understanding, cannot be a Catholic if he does not believe the truth of the Virgin Birth, whether he keeps his disbelief to himself or not. By the way. WELCOME HOME.

Rcjones. As a former defence lawyer I know a lot about get out clauses, but I’m afraid your argument re a possible defence of Adam holds no water. Whether he was given the fruit by Eve, found it, or bought it in a supermarket he was still eating of the tree, although not **off **the tree. Any circuit judge would hold that and I’m pretty sure God would spot the gaping hole in the defence case. Apart from that there is guilty knowledge, or “mens rea” and he was an accessory to the crime. Also God told Adam the rule and not Eve. She had not been created at this point and when tempted by the serpent, told him they weren’t allowed to eat of that tree. Adam was the only guy around who could have told her. In fact Eve could have argued that God didn’t tell her not to eat of the tree, Adam did and she thought he was joking, but enough!!! We’re talking about whether or not Christ was born of a Virgin. He was, because the Bible tells us he was and the CC holds that to be fundamental to the faith. Now the Protestants don’t believe in the teachings of the CC, but they are always banging on about solo scriptura or at least sola scriptura. Well it’s there in their good book too, in black and white and they are not free to disbelieve or believe as they will.

God bless

JTG’S

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Christy Beth, many thanks for your concern. I’m not outraged, because I’m not a member of the Church of Scotland. If I was, I’d be outraged and take the steps suggested

What I am is stunned. Stunned that an approved textbook for an Exam on Religious Education should state this to be the position of the Church of Scotland which claims to be Christian. I had held them in higher stead than that, but now…

Thanks again.

God bless you and yours

JTG’S

 

[mangy_dog]

Recently one of my kids has just finished an Higher Examination in Religious Education at school here in Scotland.

They go to a normal state school where Protestant, Catholic, Moslem, etc go, but the large majority by far are nominally at any rate Protestant, probably 85%, Catholics about 14% Muslem 1%.

Anyway, she brought home her text book for her old dad to help her and I noted with shock the “official” textbook for the course and exam states that as, far as the Presbyterian Church of Scotland is concerned (this is the by far the largest so called Christian denomination in this country, not some tiny wee sect, but the “State Denomination”) the belief in the miraculous Virgin Birth of Christ, is not one which must be accepted by someone in order to be a member of their church. I was staggered!!!

I believe this is frankly undermining the very foundations of the Christian faith. Perhaps many Protestants would be appalled at this, but for a text book to state this openly about the Church of Scotland means surely they must have had their approval. This is one of the many reasons we must fight so strongly to support the Catholic Church which I believe keeps the Faith of the Apostles.

I’d be very interested to know what other Catholics and those from Non Catholic denominations think of this matter and if they believe that the Virgin Birth of Christ is a central, undeniable, fundamental and essential belief, in order for one to be a Christian. Or if it is merely, as the book claimed, a matter of personal belief whether to accept this doctrine or not.

If I may make so bold, I don’t want this thread bogged down with references to what some claim to be original texts, re whether the word in the Old Testament prophesing a virgin giving birth, or in the New Testament describing Mary, means "young girl, or a virgin. I think we can take it as a given that young girls in those times and circumstances, and in particular this young girl, set apart by God to play a vital role in our redemption, and unmarried, would have been a virgin in any event. I’d just lke a straight answer to a straight question.

Is a belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ essential to being a Christian. I think I know what the Catholics will say, and trust it will coincide with mine. But what about the others?

God bless

Jimmy Two Guns

Dogma!

Immaculate - Perpetual Virgen - Mother of God - Assumed into heaven in body and soul.

These dogma are not only Marian…they are Christological, in light of Christ’s virtues.

To deny them is to deny Christ’s virtues and indeed to deny Christ’s Divinity.

I could go on and on about this subject. This past Saturday I gave a one hour talk about the 4 Dogma of Mary during a spiritual retreat.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Linda_Marie]

The Bible and The Church tell us Mary was a Virgin. Christ’s conception was a miraculous occurrence. End of Story. If someone does not believe that then they do not believe in a fundamental part of the Christian Faith, and certainly a Catholic in my understanding, cannot be a Catholic if he does not believe the truth of the Virgin Birth, whether he keeps his disbelief to himself or not.
God bless

JTG’S

Indeed, it goes to the very core of Who Jesus is. If Mary was not a virgin, then Jesus had a human father and could not be divine. He would have been fully human, period. This is not about Mary, but about Jesus. It denies the Divinity of Jesus.

This is a heresy reminiscent of Dynamic Monarchianism:

Dynamic monarchianism stated that Jesus was an ordinary man, in whom had been placed a divine power by God (dynamis is Greek for ‘power’).
roman-empire.net/religion/heresy.html

 

[rcjones]

Rcjones. As a former defence lawyer I know a lot about get out clauses, but I’m afraid your argument re a possible defence of Adam holds no water. Whether he was given the fruit by Eve, found it, or bought it in a supermarket he was still eating of the tree, although not **off **the tree. Any circuit judge would hold that and I’m pretty sure God would spot the gaping hole in the defence case. Apart from that there is guilty knowledge, or “mens rea” and he was an accessory to the crime. Also God told Adam the rule and not Eve. She had not been created at this point and when tempted by the serpent, told him they weren’t allowed to eat of that tree. Adam was the only guy around who could have told her. In fact Eve could have argued that God didn’t tell her not to eat of the tree, Adam did and she thought he was joking, but enough!!! We’re talking about whether or not Christ was born of a Virgin. He was, because the Bible tells us he was and the CC holds that to be fundamental to the faith. Now the Protestants don’t believe in the teachings of the CC, but they are always banging on about solo scriptura or at least sola scriptura. Well it’s there in their good book too, in black and white and they are not free to disbelieve or believe as they will.

God bless

JTG’S

Just like a lawyer to focus on the secondary issues…

The primary point was that almost everything can be heard two ways. And there is always a sea lawyer to knit pick the details to death.

I also did not intend to contrast ‘of’ and ‘off’ but the concept of ‘from’.

My point was not to try to get him off. Obviously he was guilty. I was just showing the legalist mindset in the affair. Pharisees tried to justify themselves by the law also. God saw through that as well. Adam was just the first Pharisee…

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Onve a lawyer … I understand what you say, however when you state “The primary point was that almost everything can be heard two ways” that may be correct, but not on this occasion. The Bible clearly and unequivocally states, both OT and NT that Christ would be, and was, born of a VIrgin. It is prophesied beforehand, Mary asserts her virginity at the annunciation, the Archangel Gabriel answers her and explains what will happen etc. This CANNOT be heard two ways. It can only be ignored or disbelieved and if a person choses to deliberately ignore or disbelieve this fundamental truth of the Christian Faith, then he cannot be a Catholic. I will not comment on protestants as they may well still be able to be protestants (in fact obviously, from the text book I mentioned they can be) but I would doubt their orthodoxy as Christians, if indeed they can be classed as Christian, which I seriously doubt.

JTG’S

 

[rcjones]

Onve a lawyer … The Bible clearly and unequivocally states, both OT and NT that Christ would be, and was, born of a VIrgin.

No disagreement there. I was addressing the point of the Presbyterian statement.

The statement made did not deny the virgin birth. It was a statement on the requirement for membership.

Not requiring someone to know, understand and fully acknowledge as true the doctrine of the virgin birth as a requirement for membership is quite different than institutionally denying it.

Salvation is of the Lord. He saves whom he will without requiring certificates of doctrinal purity. The Presbyterian statement may simply be an acknowledgment of this rather than a denial of the doctrine.

I merely suggested that the statement be read with grace rather than with prejudice.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

No disagreement there. I was addressing the point of the Presbyterian statement.

The statement made did not deny the virgin birth. It was a statement on the requirement for membership.

Not requiring someone to know, understand and fully acknowledge as true the doctrine of the virgin birth as a requirement for membership is quite different than institutionally denying it.

Salvation is of the Lord. He saves whom he will without requiring certificates of doctrinal purity. The Presbyterian statement may simply be an acknowledgment of this rather than a denial of the doctrine.

I merely suggested that the statement be read with grace rather than with prejudice.

I did not for a second say that the book I mentioned stated that Presbyterianism as an institution denied the Virgin Birth. Nor, I would submit, are we required to understand the Virgin Birth, in fact we can do no other than accept that it was a miracle, an act of God’s grace. But believe in it as fundamental to the Christian religion we must. It is not open for debate. Forgive me if I say that all this talk of reading the statement with grace rather than prejudice is so much goody-two-shoes hogwash. I read it with great prejudice as it is yet another example of an attempt to undermine the True Faith. When Christ saw the moneylenders in the temple, or heard the pharisee’s hypocritical talk, did he stand back and watch and listen with grace? No, he stated the truth. Truth is never up for debate.

JTG’S

 

[rcjones]

From the OP:

the belief in the miraculous Virgin Birth of Christ, is not one which must be accepted by someone in order to be a member of their church.

Now:

I did not for a second say that the book I mentioned stated that Presbyterianism as an institution denied the Virgin Birth. Nor, I would submit, are we required to understand the Virgin Birth, in fact we can do no other than accept that it was a miracle, an act of God’s grace. But believe in it as fundamental to the Christian religion we must. It is not open for debate.

Jumping from the first post to the conclusion that it is a denial of the virgin birth which must not be debated is exactly the point I made. Thank you for admitting your prejudice.

I read it with great prejudice as it is yet another example of an attempt to undermine the True Faith. When Christ saw the moneylenders in the temple, or heard the pharisee’s hypocritical talk, did he stand back and watch and listen with grace? No, he stated the truth. Truth is never up for debate.

Forgive me if I say that all this talk of reading the statement with grace rather than prejudice is so much goody-two-shoes hogwash.

If asking for grace in a circumstance to quiet prejudices is a goody-two-shoes thing, then I stand guilty as charged. You may have all my ego points in this exchange.

 

[mercygate]

Hi Notworthy,

No, it had nothing to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity, nor her immaculate conception. In any event, as the chapter concerned was not comparing the beliefs of the Church of Scotland to any other denomination.these topics would not arise.

It was the Virgin Birth of Christ which was the issue. I quite realise you want me to check, ‘cause you’'re as shocked as I was that an official examination textbook talking about a mainstream Presbyterian Church would state this, but it did.

God bless

JTG’S

I am not surprised.

Mainline Protestantism has been traveling this road since the mid-19th Century. This sort of thing is how fundamentalism got started: Clergy at Princeton proposed the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith: The Virgin Birth of Jesus, the inerrancy of Scripture (and Scripture as the sole rule of faith), the bodily Resurrection of Our Lord, His Second Coming in judgment at the end of time, salvation by faith alone.

Catholics have more in common with this list than we have quarrels with it. But the Virgin Birth is a non-negotiable.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

From the OP:

Now:

Jumping from the first post to the conclusion that it is a denial of the virgin birth which must not be debated is exactly the point I made. Thank you for admitting your prejudice.

If asking for grace in a circumstance to quiet prejudices is a goody-two-shoes thing, then I stand guilty as charged. You may have all my ego points in this exchange.

I think you’re reading me wrong. In the first of my posts you quote me as saying. “the belief in the miraculous Virgin Birth of Christ, is not one which must be accepted by someone in order to be a member of their church” Note I said their Church, i.e. the Church of Scotland. And from the text book that was the clearly stated position. You could choose to believe, or not believe. Either way would do.

In the second of my posts you quote me as saying. “I did not for a second say that the book I mentioned stated that Presbyterianism as an institution denied the Virgin Birth. Nor, I would submit, are we required to understand the Virgin Birth, in fact we can do no other than accept that it was a miracle, an act of God’s grace. But believe in it as fundamental to the Christian religion we must. It is not open for debate” Frankly I find it hard to see what you’re getting at. In the first post I say that the trouble with the C of S is that the matter of the VIrgin Birth is optional. In the second I state that in my view and the CC’s view, this doctrine is not up for debate. I fail to see any inconsistency in my position.

Further, when I state “I read it with great prejudice as it is yet another example of an attempt to undermine the True Faith. When Christ saw the moneylenders in the temple, or heard the pharisee’s hypocritical talk, did he stand back and watch and listen with grace? No, he stated the truth. Truth is never up for debate” Again, this is consistent with what I said earlier.

If a person is prejudiced he or she holds a preconcieved opinion. So yes, I am prejudiced in that I do not consider this doctrine needs to be looked into, examined, mulled over, debated or whatever, as the Bible and the CC tell us very, very, very, simply what the truth of the matter is and there is absolutely no need for further discussion. Further there can be no prejudices that require grace to be quieted. There is no other point of view possible to a Christian. The clear truth is stated in the Bible without any ambiguity and affirmed by Christ’s Church.

What’s next on the discussion list, Christ’s divinity?

This is not a matter of ego. Truth is Truth.

JTG’S.