Why the New Testament says little about the virgin birth

Christmas is fast approaching and very likely there will be one or two newspaper articles or news items questioning the veracity of the virgin birth. I firmly believe in the virgin birth, above all because the Bible says that this is what happened (Matt 1:18,19; Luke 1:34,35). The objection that virgin births don’t happen is one of the weakest arguments there is against it. The Bible tells us that the Son of God was born of a virgin. Now if God is the creator of all things and the sustainer of all things, if He is the Lord Almighty, then a virgin birth should be well within His capabilities!

However, there is one point the sceptics make that does, on the face of it, seem to carry more weight.This is that the New Testament makes very little of the virgin birth. Only two of the gospels record it, and there is virtually no mention of it in the rest of the New Testament. This paucity of mention of the virgin birth supposedly gives credence to the view that it arose as a myth. I have been thinking about this argument and consider it to be totally false.

So let’s think about it a little. There are two key events in the New Testament that go completely against all human experience. One is the virgin birth, the other is the resurrection. The New Testament does indeed say little about the virgin birth, on the other hand the resurrection is absolutely central to everything the New Testament says, it is at the heart of the gospel. Why this difference?

Well consider this. Can I “prove” the virgin birth? No. The only grounds I have for supporting the virgin birth is that the Bible says this is what happened. I can argue that it is perfectly reasonable and consistent with the divinity of Jesus Christ. In fact I believe that a virgin birth is the only way that Jesus could have come into the world. But all these are just arguments, they are not proof as such. In the same way the early church could not prove the virgin birth. If it happened today then I suppose some DNA test might prove something, but it would be very interesting to see what God’s DNA is!

Now think about the resurrection. Yes I can still argue that it makes sense and is reasonable and consistent with everything else the New Testament says, and is indeed essential and the only way things could happen. But there is something else I can do, I can offer loads of evidences. Back in the first century the early church could offer even stronger evidence. The tomb was empty, neither the Jews nor the Roman authorities could produce a body or point to a non-empty tomb. Many people were direct witnesses to the risen Christ, and these witnesses could be questioned. Ie they could offer demonstrable evidence that the resurrection occurred, something they could not do with the virgin birth.

And that is why the New Testament is full of stuff about the resurrection, but says little about the virgin birth. Both are true, both are vital, but only one of them had evidence that could be presented to the world.

Ezra and Calvinism

Below is a blog that will appear as part of my Bible Musings blog in about 7 or 8 weeks time. I got sidetracked with some thoughts on Calvinism while studying Ezra, and all this at 6:30 in the morning. This seemed an appropriate topic for my Thoughtful Resources blog, so here it is.

This is inspired by Ezra 8:1-14

We now get a list of those who returned with Ezra. It amounted to about 1500 men and included 40 Levites. We need to realise how few of the Israelites actually returned to Jerusalem in total (approx 50 000). God had opened up the way of "salvation" but few chose to take it. In a sense it is no different today. On the cross Jesus made the way of salvation, but still few choose to take it.

Can I go on a wee aside here on Calvanism. Calvanism is often summarised by the acronym TULIP. The L stands for limited atonement, this means that Christ died on the cross not for the sins of all but for the sins of the elect. (This is just a rather crude summary, please accept all its imperfections, there isn't time to go into the whole doctrine of Calvinism!) The strengths of the arguments for this view are mainly twofold. The first is that it stresses the personal aspect of Christ's sacrifice. It wasn't just a general thing, Christ really did die for you and for me, personally. We weren't just included in a general collection. It was a deliberate act of love. In fact, it would be far better for "limited atonement" to be replaced by "specific atonement". Limited atonement paints God as mean and nasty, that is most definitely not what the doctrine is saying. It is stressing the particular, the personal, and the effectiveness of Christ's death and resurrection. However, TUSIP doesn't have the same ring as TULIP, so we are stuck with limited.

The second aspect is the effectiveness of the cross. Under an Arminian view the cross provided the means or the way of salvation, but it doesn't actually save (again apology for deficiencies in this summary). Calvinism stresses the effectiveness, Christ's death on the cross actually did win my salvation, not just the possibility of my salvation.

So what has all this got to do with Ezra? You may well ask! Well I find many aspects of Calvinism attractive and true to the Bible, but here, in Scripture, we see that God has made a way of salvation but few have chosen it, and there was much urging and persuading trying to get people to take up the way (see Zechariah 2, also remember Jesus' parable on the banquet). So the Arminian perspective is not as unbiblical as Calvinists sometimes seek to make out! 

It seems to me that both are declaring part of the truth, and they cannot see how if their part is true the other bit can be true as well. Or, rather, if the other bit is true, how can their bit be true. So we have the "war" between Arminianism and Calvinism. Can we square the circle? Well maybe we can, a little. God knows the beginning from the end, so when Christ died on the cross He knew who He was dying for (by the way, I am not going into Molenism here). Yet from our perspective we hadn't made the decision yet. You see part of the problem is eternity. God is eternal (and that means much more than just going on forever), we are temporal. We see one event happening after another, God sees them all at once. Now I am fully aware that there are holes in what I have just said, but it us 6.30am in the morning and I have to go to work (what a wonderful way to start the day, thinking about the cross!). But what I am confident of is that some of the contradictions are not real. Eternity and all its consequences are too big for us to understand, and we need to remember the limited perspective from which we see things (1 Cor 13:12). We need to be absolutely  bold about what we do see, but we also need to beware of thinking that we see everything.

Making (non)sense of predestination.

Predestination is an issue that divides some Christians. It is probably fair to say that the majority ignore the issue, and who can blame them? However, others get extremely uptight about the matter. There are three main camps: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism (or middle knowledge). I am not a theologian nor philosopher (and no doubt that will show), so if you want real in-depth insight on these matters you need to go elsewhere, but I will seek to offer a few thoughts that some might find helpful.

The crux of the matter is the apparent conflict between the sovereignty of God and human freewill. Calvinism stresses the sovereignty of God and Arminianism stresses human freewill. Molinism seeks to do justice to both, and William Lane Craig is perhaps the most well-known proponent of Molinism.

The problem arises when we see things through only one lens. God is sovereign, it is His will that will prevail. The Bible is abundantly clear on this point, from beginning to end. The issue arises when we view things through that lens alone, for then it seems to negate freewill. It can also be accused of making God the author of evil, and turning us into little more than automatons. (By the way, the freewill problem is not confined to theology, it is a general philosophical problem.) If there is no human freewill then that goes against the glory of God. For the Bible teaches us that we were made in His image, and the whole goal of the Bible is a people who freely choose to love the Lord ("I will be their God, and they will be my people"). So Calvinism can easily slip into taking away the glory of God that it seeks to proclaim.

While the Bible is clear on the sovereignty of God it is equally clear that our attitudes and our actions matter. There are also numerous examples where God's actions are influenced by our actions, and even cases where the Bible presents God as having changed His mind. So we do have freewill and how we live our lives really does matter. The danger arises when if make this the overriding lens through which we view things, for then it can easily end up negating the sovereignty of God, making God subject to us.

Molinism seeks to do justice to both, respecting freewill while fully honouring the sovereignty of God. So that is something very much in its favour. However, it does seem to fall into philosophical and theological traps. Reasons to Believe had a couple of very good programmes on it recently, and James White makes frequent valid criticisms.

So where does that leave us? My approach is this. Take the Bible as your guide. Believe everything it proclaims. So we should believe we were chosen before the creation of the world, we should believe that our decisions matter. 

What about seeking to understand it. Well we need to recognise that we cannot fully understand it, but that does not mean we cannot understand anything. Nor does it mean that we should not seek to understand anything. What it does mean is that we learn to recognise when we are coming up against the limits of our understanding. The problems arise when we seek to push beyond these limits.

Is this a cop-out? No, it is actually philosophically and mathematically reasonable. Godel has a famous incompleteness theorem that states that in any logically consistent system there will be some things that are true but that cannot be proven to be true. Now that most definitely does not mean that we throw logic out of the window. It does mean that we recognise the limits of logic. In fact, logic is very useful for atheists and evolutionists can sometimes be the most illogical people on earth.

The whole Christian world view (more generally theistic world view) is that the universe was created by someone or something outside of the universe. So we should not actually expect to be able to understand everything (Deut 29:29). 

Resources - Reasons to Believe

Reasons to Believe is an American organisation, as they state on their website, the purpose is:

RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.

They have a very useful website, though  mainly access them through a couple of their podcasts. Straight Thinking deals with all sorts of issues, theological, scientific, cultural. Sometimes it is a discussion between the main team members, at other times they have special guests on. The other podcast series I listen to regularly is Science News Flash, which deals with the various topical scientific issues.

RTB take an old earth creationist stance, theologically they tend towards the Calvinist end of things. There are some very interesting discussions, and the science items are very good.

Thoughts - The Real Problem of Hell

Seeing as it is New Year I thought I would write a nice cheery message on hell!

One of the most common “objections” to God is the so-called problem of hell. In this essay we will look at three issues:

• Hell and a God of love
• Eternal torment or annihilationism
• The real problem of hell.

Hell and a God of Love

Perhaps the most common objection is “how can a God of love send people to hell?”. This is a false problem. The fundamental error is that it takes a purely one dimensional view of the matter, focusing only on the punishment of hell. However, hell does not exist in isolation. The last day will be a day of judgement, there will be an open court on that day when all actions and attitudes will be laid bare. On that day the true awfulness of sin will be made known to all. You see, at present none of us realise just how terrible sin is, and the terrible effects that it has, both on the sinner and the ones sinned against.

Now consider who God is and what we know about Him. We know that He is a God of love and a God of perfect justice, and a God of great mercy. So we can be absolutely confident that on that last day every judgement will be completely fair.

On that day no one, not even Richard Dawkins, will complain that a single unjust decision has been made. The only scandal on that day will be that God was so patient for so long and has been so merciful to so many.

Eternal Torment or Annihilationism

Currently there is debate about the nature of hell. The traditional view is that it involves eternal torment, against this there are those who argue that it is annihilation of the soul, total destruction. Both sides quote Scripture to support their view. I am not going to go into all the ins and outs of this, Unbelievable had an interesting programme on this early last year, but will make a few observations.

The first is that we actually have a limited idea of what eternity means. We do know that it is much more than merely “going on forever”. Things will be very different in the new heaven and the new earth. So just as we do not know what heaven will be really like, we do not know what hell will be really like.

However, that does not mean that we do not know anything about it. Just as we know that heaven is the place to be, we know that hell is definitely the place to avoid. As Timothy Keller said in one of his sermons, the language used in the Bible about hell is almost certainly metaphorical, but it is a metaphor for something far worse.

I worry sometimes about those who argue for annihilationism. What are you really trying to say? Is it “Hell, it’s not so bad really”?

And another question for those who argue for annihilationism. Do you know what it is like to be completely annihilated? No you don’t, you have absolutely no idea. One thing we can be pretty certain about is that it is not a matter of being put to sleep!

So let’s look at what Jesus said, for He is the ultimate authority.

The Real Problem of Hell

It has often been observed that the person who spoke most about hell is Jesus Himself. And it is Jesus who spoke about torment and gnashing of teeth and fire. The message that Jesus had on hell is that you absolutely do not want to go there and should do everything you can to avoid going there.

So our teaching and preaching on hell (you don’t get much of that these days, though) should focus on what we can be sure about, sharing the emphasis that Jesus had.

You see, the real problem is that every single human being, without Christ, is on the road to hell. The good news is that there is a way out, but there is only one way out. That way is to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.