Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth?
December 28th, 2006That’s a question Albert Mohler tackled on his blog in a post on Christmas day. After giving an overview of some of the attacks about the virgin birth, Mohler concludes:
Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? The answer to that question must be a decisive No. Those who deny the virgin birth reject the authority of Scripture, deny the supernatural birth of the Savior, undermine the very foundations of the Gospel, and have no way of explaining the deity of Christ.
Anyone who claims that the virgin birth can be discarded even as the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest or theological incompetent.
And further:
Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.
Strong words — yet necessary, and true.
I have a problem when someone says, “you cannot be a Christian if you deny this or espouse that.” Mohler seems to be adding to the Gospel. Never have I read, “that if you confess with your mouth the virgin birth, you will be saved.”
I have a client who is a strong Christian. He is also a petroleum geophysicist. As a scientist, he does not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, or a six day creation. People have told me, and him, that he cannot truly be a Christian if he denies these essential facts of our origin.
Others have said you can’t be saved if you reject the trinity.
The problem is, most people have no clue what the virgin birth is, or why it is important. Are we to add this to our evangelism speech, that they have to sign off on these points of doctrine before they can be called saved?
Faith is a step by step process, that begins with a small move toward believing. Then a bigger step, then a bigger step. Much of the stuff I believed when I was first saved, I have rejected because I was young and immature. Mohler, in writing this, leaves little room for the intelectually skeptical, who is exploring the Christian faith. They may read this and say, “well I just don’t know if I believe that, so I guess I’m out.” And that is tragic.
Faith is a step by step process, that begins with a small move toward believing. Then a bigger step, then a bigger step.
Biblically it is a 3 part process:
Justification: Being made right with God through His offer of salvation in His Son presented when the Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin and opens your eyes to the truth of the gospel which at some point you had to hear as that is the only method under the sun by which men can be saved.
Sanctification: Being fashioned more and more into the image of Christ as we pursue holiness and flee unrighteousness. This too is a work of the Holy Spirit and obedience to the scripture on ours.
Glorification: Being perfect as He is perfect, holy as He is holy; we will obtain this in the world to come, not this one.
Mohler, in writing this, leaves little room for the intelectually skeptical, who is exploring the Christian faith. They may read this and say, “well I just don’t know if I believe that, so I guess I’m out.” And that is tragic.
Yeah, I think Jesus did the same thing to the rich young ruler when he said go and sell all that you have and follow me… or to the other guy that wanted to bury his father, he said let the dead bury the dead, come and follow me. Now where are those things in the “gospel”?
As for the virgin birth, if you deny it, then logically you deny the diety of Christ as portrayed in the scripture. I think not understanding it and believing scripture is true is one thing, but to deny it is a completely different matter.
How is it that we can pick and choose what parts of scripture we want to believe? Do we really have the wisdom and understanding to say that this part is true b/c it sounds true while this part about such and such is false b/c it is just so hard to believe? Either we believe it is infallible or we don’t. If we believe the bible is riddled with errors how can we even trust a single verse? I for one cannot go cherry picking for the parts that make me feel good about my plot in life while ignoring the others claiming they are not true. (Jason, just so you know, this part was not aimed at you personally)
j razz
I’ve also heard some say that gays cannot be saved. You’re right, j razz, we pick and choose. It’s called Salad Bar Faith. Who has the right to say which stuff gets included and which stuff does not in the doctrinal final exam?
Not me, I’ll tell you that.
If one can believe in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, and its sufficiency to pay one’s own penalty for sin, that IS sufficient for salvation. That’s it. That’s your ticket. (TD Jakes, for example, does preach some goofy stuff, but even though he doesn’t believe in the Trinity, he could still accept Jesus’ atonement for his sins and be welcomed into Heaven one day.)
However, if we can believe in this humanly ridiculous claim (that a guy died and came back to life), why can someone not believe in a virgin birth (an equally ridiculous claim, humanly speaking).
If someone calls himself a Christian, they’ve already accepted something that cannot be intellectually solved or explained. It’s “faith” because it can’t be explained, only trusted. If you put your trust in what Christ did on the cross, is it a leap to have faith in how He began that journey?
I agree that what’s required for salvation is a belief in the atoning death of Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for one’s sin.
But, how can you believe that Jesus paid the penalty for your sin if you don’t believe in the virgin birth? If Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin, then he had his own sin nature to deal with, and he couldn’t be counted on to pay for mine.
I agree with what J Razz said, that it’s one thing not to understand the full implications of the virgin birth. It’s another to understand it and flat out reject it, and I think that’s what Mohler is addressing.
BTW, yes, my loins are girded and my psyche is braced for the certain verbal chastisement I’m to receive.
It’s just that people confuse things so frequently. God’s plan is so illogically simple. The intellectualism we attach to it is beyond the “childlike” acceptance Scripture points to. It’s not that the deep-thinking part is wrong, it’s just later in the order of Christian maturity.
OK…bring it on. Let ‘em fly…
We are not saved because Christ conquered the limits of human conception (even though He did). We are saved because He conquered death. I’m not saying that the virgin birth is irrelevant, I just think it’s a possibility for someone to be legitimately saved (yet spiritually immature) believing in Christ’s atonement, yet not appreciate the virgin birth.
With maturity, should they come to accept it? Certainly! But if they do not, will they not be allowed into God’s Heaven? I don’t think so. It’s simply not what is taught in Scripture.
In the words of the late, great, dead Frank Sinatra…”All…or nothing at all…” But there are points that we can disagree on, those being non-essential to salvation. I don’t think this is one of them.
The one I usually get asked about is Jonah. People ask me if I really believe that happened. Of course I do. If I believe God created the entire universe, why would I not believe he could sustain a man in a big fish for a few days?
“I just think it’s a possibility for someone to be legitimately saved (yet spiritually immature) believing in Christ’s atonement, yet not appreciate the virgin birth.”
I agree with that. I thought we were talking about mature Christians who are eating meat and not just drinking milk.
Could be, Zoner… Perhaps this was my error…
I’m playing devil’s advocate more than anything (since I do believe these things), but I do think there is the CORE thing, very important things, and then a series of lesser important things…
Did those of you that were saved as children understand the concept of the virgin birth? I didn’t. But I don’t think it made me any less saved.
I think we’re all very close. My contention is two-fold:
1.) I don’t believe a rejection of the virgin birth revokes salvation. It simply points to a lack of faith, maturity, whatever…
2.) I don’t understand how one can accept the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ as a supernatural event, yet reject other events because they’re “unrealistic”. It’s just not a thought process I understand…
I’m having a hard time collecting my thoughts on this, partly because today is the last trading day of the year, and now they announce the market will be closed on Tuesday out of respect for Mr. Ford. So forgive me if I’m not completely jointed on this.
What I’m hearing is intellectual snobbery from some of you. Of course, salvation is by faith in the atoning death of Christ, and that requires faith. What is NOT required is a complete understanding of all points of theology. None of us would be saved if that were true.
J Razz, while I appreciate your subtle sarcasm, Jesus knew the man’s heart when He said to go and sell all you have and give it to the poor. Would you add this to your evangelistic technique? I hope not, because you and I are limited in our understanding. I would never tell anybody that before they could be saved, they would have to sell everything and give the money away. That’s not a privilege I have been afforded by the Holy Spirit.
A deacon once told me (jokingly I’m sure) that before he was saved, he thought the Trinity was a car. He didn’t know, didn’t care. All he knew was that he was lost, and needed Christ. So he took that first step of faith, and gave his life to Jesus. Then, little by little, his faith grew. He was a science teacher, and probably did not believe in the virgin birth. But as his faith grew, he thought, “Okay, I can accept that.” Today, he believes all of the Bible. When he was saved, I’m sure he did not.
We have to be so careful to not write off people who are not as knowledgeable as others. Mohler is being a spiritual snob when he says that a person cannot be saved if they deny the virgin birth. They most certainly can. And if he would take the time to disciple them instead of judge them, they might eventually begin to believe it.
No sarcasm was meant by me.
j razz
I think the term “true Christian” is completely unhelpful.
Without a doubt, a person who understands the virgin birth and willfully denies it is sinning. Confront them, rebuke them, remove them from positions of authority, kick them out of the church if necessary. Paul gave us a pretty clear procedure for dealing with false teachers.
I don’t think there’s any basis for saying that a person whoe professes Christian faith but believes a theological error is by definition not a Christian, which is what Mohler seems to be saying.
Unfortunately, Mohler asks a question that isn’t really what he’s trying to get to. His article is clear that he’s placing an importance on the diety of Christ and the significance of such in being a Christian. And he’s correct in identifying that importance. However, his question can be misinterpreted to imply that he means that a belief in the virgin birth necessary to salvation.
What does it take to be a “true” Christian? Simply, recognition of a need for a Savior and that Jesus Christ is that Savior. You don’t need to understand the trinity, how He got here (virgin birth, etc), or what’ll happen when He comes back (post-trib, pre-trib, amil, etc)…
Belief in the virgin birth IS NOT necessary to be a TRUE Christian, though it is most certainly part of being a mature Christian.
I think what is missing in this discussion is the specific denials to whick Mohler is referring. The main thrust of Mohler’s commentary is those who do have a firm grasp on matters theological and yet practice some intellectual snobbery of their own as they say (and I’m paraphrasing) “I’m too smart to fall for that miraculous stuff, but I can still claim Christ.”
I don’t think Mohler is advocating a list of things that a new convert must assent to before salvation is granted. What he is saying is that the intellectual elite on the left are claiming a different Christ when they deny the virgin birth.
For the most part this same crowd would define justification differently as well, but that is another topic all together.
The main crux of the argument is that a denial of the virgin birth is also a denial of the diety of Christ and the authority of Scripture.
Mohler is not talking about new converts or the way the gospel is presented. He is talking about a calculated effort on the part of liberal scholars to erode a foundation of faith and yet still be considered orthodox.
Commentaries like this are one of the great strengths of Mohlers ministry. By cutting through the fog, he allows common Christians who don’t think theology matters to understand what the big deal is.
I do think once one has read the virgin birth story (which many non-christians today even know if they have paid attention the times they attended a Christmas service) that they need to believe in it. The raising of Christ from the dead is central, but his being the son of God is very important (you cannot have one without the other).
Owen –
Well said.
I’m late getting into this discussion but I wanted to address something jasonk said. Jason said that Mohler should take time to disciple people instead of judge them.
There is a difference between dealing with people we know on an individual level and discussing ideas in a public forum. Dr. Mohler is right to publicly address those who deny the virgin birth because, as Owen pointed out, he is helping to show Christian people why doctrinal issues are important. But there is a difference between him doing that and him dealing with someone on an individual basis.
Let’s say for example that a student at Southern came to Dr. Mohler and told him that he was having trouble understanding the virgin birth and didn’t really know why it mattered one way or the other. What do you think Dr. Mohler would do? Would he condemn the student on the spot and have him kicked out of the school? Or would he do everything he could to disciple him and show him the truth from Scripture? I think we all know the answer to that question.
It’s one thing to disagree with what Mohler says, but that can be done without calling into question his heart for others.
This is not about ’salad bar faith’ as someone characterized it or about having to understand certain theological issues before we can be saved.
In order to be saved we must place our faith in the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. That Christ is virgin born. If we are trusting any other christ for our salvation we are not saved - period. That’s the real issue here false christs versus the real One. If we deny the virgin birth we believe on a false christ who cannot save.