From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mary and the Moderns
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:10:43 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Michael" == Michael Siemon <mls@panix.com> writes:


Michael> But you see, that is precisely what calling Mary a Virgin
Michael> seems to me to imply -- a concern for low-grade speculation
Michael> that has nothing to do with the case.  It is like requiring
Michael> transubstantiation for the Real Presence of Christ in the
Michael> eucharist.  What has "virginity" got to do with Incarnation,
Michael> any more than "essence & accident" have to do with
Michael> eucharistic bread and wine?

There is a big difference between the RC doctrine of
transubstantiation and the Virgin birth.  Transubstantiation
is not taught in Scripture--"real presence" definitely is.
Likewise the Virgin birth is explicitly stated in Scripture--as
a fulfillment of a prophecy, Isaiah 7:14.  You can certainly
debate the transation and interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, but
Matthew's gospel is very clear and unambiguous in stating the
virgin birth and on the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.  Luke also
states the virgin birth explicity.  So one very important reason
for believing the virgin birth is that it is a clear teaching of
Scripture.

The virgin birth helps us understand that Christ's humiliation began
with his birth/incarnation.  The Apostles creed describes the
humiliation of Christ thus:

Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
  Born of the Virgin Mary;
    Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      Was crucified, died, and was buried.

This is followed by the description of Christ's exaltation.
IMHO the triumphant `descent into hell' is part of Christ's exaltation.

He descended into hell;
  The third day he rose again from the dead;
    He ascended into heaven
      and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty.

The incarnation was not just a matter of the Spirit entering a good
man and making him into a holy man--which is the sort of idea that one
might get if the incarnation took place at Christ's baptism.  The
virgin birth shows us that God humbled himself, not just from his
point of view, but even from *our* point of view, because he humbled
himself to the point of being born as a helpless infant.

The virgin birth also shows that Christ lived a perfect life without
sin on our behalf.  If the incarnation began at Christ's baptism, then
we would have a very different sort of Savior--perhaps just another
sinner whom God sanctified and consecrated for a special purpose.  But
the virgin birth stresses that Christ was true God *from conception*.
Thus no one could say of Christ, as David said of himself, that he was
a sinner from birth, and in sin did his mother conceive him. (Psalm 51)

Thus the virgin birth has real doctrinal consequences.  We cannot
dismiss it lightly.

The biological details of *how* the virgin birth happened are not
interesting; furthermore we have no way of knowing, this side of
Judgement Day.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran		"When Thou tookest upon Thee
				  to deliver man,
				Thou didst humble Thyself 
   				  to be born of a virgin."
				(the Te Deum Laudamus,
				 in old-fashioned english).