From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Southern Baptists Ensuring Orthodoxy
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:30:06 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Sep.11.00.11.04.1992.16227@athos.rutgers.edu> cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board) writes:
>In article <Sep.10.03.40.27.1992.24196@athos.rutgers.edu> Richard Pitts said:
>
>>If one can't produce good argument and the issue is not essential, then
>>I can see your point, but most of the issues I've seen/heard seem to 
>>fall into the category of essential (e.g., the Scriptures being the Word
>>of God, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Deity of Christ, His resurrection,
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>etc.)
>
>Just curious as to how you can place the Virgin Birth doctrine in the "essential"
>category. Keep in mind that Paul managed to "create" Christianity without
>relying on it and the earliest Gospeler saw no need to mention it! Clearly, it
>cannot be considered an ESSENTIAL teaching based on the New Testament. 

Keep in mind that you and others have "created" Paul as the creator of
Christianity.  Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.  He said he did not
preach himself, but Jesus as Lord, and he and his group as servants 2 Cor 4:5.

Paul in I Cor 15, I assume you are referencing this, did not mention 
the Virgin Birth of Christ.  However, Paul in 1 Cor 11:4 warns the them
of the potential of another Jesus, another gospel, and another Spirit.
Paul also in Galatians 1 strongly warned about anyone (even himself or
an angel preaching another gospel.)

From I Cor 15, the point of the gospel is Jesus life, death for our sin 
debt, and his resurrection.  However, we have to make sure we have the 
right Jesus and part of it is the Virgin Birth.  Jesus was God in human
flesh and this was the way He was born.  To have the right Jesus we
have the one described in the Scriptures.  Paul in I Cor 15 said Jesus
did this according to the Scriptures - there could be and is a whole 
lot of stuff balled up in the statement "according to the Scriptures."
Also, Paul points out that the things listed there were of first or
maybe foremost importance.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |

[It's not clear that the Virgin Birth is necessary to a correct
understanding of the incarnation, which is what you seem to be
implying.  Indeed the most obvious theological implication would be
Arianism, a Jesus who is half God and half man.  The orthodox view is
that Jesus is fully human, but also the incarnation of God.  Having
Joseph as his father would be just fine from the theological point of
view.  Indeed it might be slightly better, since we would not have the
obvious question of where the half of Jesus' genetic material came
from that would normally come from the father.  This is not an
argument against the Virgin Birth.  It could have been intended as a
way to mark the special nature of this birth, emphasizing that Jesus
was born not because of the will of the flesh, but as part of God's
plan.  If understood in such a way, I have no problem with it.  But if
you try to use it to derive a doctrine of the incarnation, you will
almost certainly end in heresy.  --clh]