Well Paul I would look “briefly” at the article this way (this is just a very brief review of a few points…we could write a book against it given the proper amount of time and effort):<br><br><ul> 1. Should “The Virgin Birth of Christ” be celebrated by any denomination? IMHO no. I do not believe Mary would desire the honor and praise being pronounced upon her name. While Mary was an extraordinary woman she was also an ordinary woman, a sinner at best (Rom 3:23). Only the gift she received from God made her extraordinary. She with Scripture would set it right today and say, “No man can serve two masters…….”. According to the evidence of Scripture all worship is do our Lord and not Mary. (Here I have presumed the evidence of Scripture)<br><br>2. While the sarcasm of the article states [color:blue]“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America's emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith,”</font color=blue> one would immediately ask who all these biblical scholars are that merely “think” the Virgin Birth is on shaky ground. The Bible is true—thus what other evidence other than the Scripture do we need to confirm the miraculous birth of Christ. Only minds not renewed by the glorious Gospel of Christ would say the Virgin Birth is on shaky ground. The Christian presupposes the truthfulness of the Word of God as a standard of truth and direction. True knowledge depends on God’s prior knowledge, begins with the fear of the Lord (which these biblical scholars of the article reveal they have none), and requires submission to God’s Word. Any Bible Scholar that does not presuppose God’s word is merely in vain deception and submits himself rather to traditions of men and other futile reasoning’s of depravity. (Here I have presumed the evidence of Scripture and the proper Philosophical method of discerning truth).<br><br>3. The author quotes Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian. Why would one quote a historian and not the Scripture? Truly the author is using a slight of hand approach of deception to bring others to his view point of doubting the Virgin Birth! While the author’s quote of the great Yale historian and theologian was correct it was also out of context. Pelikan has stated in his five volume series, The Christian Tradition, "several times” the belief of the Virgin birth as established in history. One such quote says, [color:red]“It is probably to Ambrose, who in turn became the mentor of Augustine on these matters, that we should attribute the definitive establishment of a firm ‘casual relation between the virginal conception and the sinlessness of Christ’….”</font color=red> Of course, the witness of God is greater than man and thus we rest our case in Scripture against the warfare of the article itself quoting a mere mortal. (Here I have presumed the evidence of Scripture and used the evidence of the very man quoted to disprove the quotation given in the article.). [/LIST] Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.<br><br>I hope this helps. But, definitions are important and thus my other questions deemed to be posted....

Reformed and Always Reforming,