Well, what an interesting article. I do hope you'll forgive me- I’m afraid I know very little about the “presupposition,” “evidence” or other methods for analyzing. However, my own quaint sense of logic tells me there’s much wrong with how he attempts to justify his thinking. Here’s my thoughts, offered in the hope they might get someone else going in the direction you intended............<br><br>[snip]<br>So this day is an opportunity to look at perhaps the most fundamental divide between America and the rest of the industrialized world: faith. <br>(Yet later he says, “One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America. That has nothing to do with faith, per se.) <br>Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible exception of South Korea. <br>(And here he equates religion with faith, a non sequitur, in my opinion.)<br>[snip] <br>The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. <br>(Is he suggesting that belief in miracles is patently unreasonable?) <br>The percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth actually rose five points in the latest poll. <br>(And what are the comparable figures for other countries? Isn’t he supposed to be comparing the US against the “rest of the industrialized world”? Do the poll numbers he references above support this claim?)<br><br>My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. <br>(What evidence does he use to support the claim that having these two beliefs in tandem was “typical” of that generation? )<br>Those kinds of mainline Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals. Since 1960, the number of Pentecostalists has increased fourfold, while the number of Episcopalians has dropped almost in half. <br>(This supposes that Episcopalians are “mainline” and since they are the example here, one has to suppose they believed as his Presbyterian grandfather did, i.e., that they were also “typical.” What evidence is there to support this? Additionally, is he suggesting that a changing belief in the Virgin Birth has something to do with the increases/decreases in church membership? Did these people also become more or less intellectual all of a sudden?)<br><br>The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. <br>(He has yet to provide evidence for any gulf he claims exists but supposes we’ll accept that and agree that it must be developing here as well.) <br>One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America. <br><br>Some liberals wear T-shirts declaring, "So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions." On the other side, there are attitudes like those on a Web site, dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm, explaining the 2000 election this way: <br><br>"God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled and hanging chads may also be because of God's intervention on those who were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's choice." <br>(Now it would be nice to know which of these he wants us to regard as the intellectual ones, and which are religious. He implies or otherwise suggests they are mutually exclusive things because he presents them as polarities.)<br><br>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. <br>(Well, Sherlock, he understands the faith concept.) <br>As the Catholic theologian Hans Küng puts it in "On Being a Christian," the Virgin Birth is a "collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly legendary" narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were widespread in many parts of the ancient world. <br>(Is his argument supposed to be more tenable simply because he finds someone within the ranks of the very religion that reveres Mary the most willing to bash the Virgin Birth?)<br><br>Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel). <br>(A rather flimsy and very common way to attack faith is to decry “apparent” inconsistencies of Scripture, and this we must assume he uses as a membership qualifier for “intellectuals.”)<br><br>Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians. <br>(The pious are so because of their faith in the truth of Scripture, no matter what the world thinks, a point that he overlooks entirely!)<br><br>I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. <br>(This is the same as saying, “Don’t take it personally that I think you lack intellect because you believe in the miracle of the Virgin Birth.”) <br>And I don't pretend to know why America is so much more infused with religious faith than the rest of the world. <br>(At last he admits to not knowing something. Where’s the evidence that we are more religious? Even based on what little I know I would say on a per capita basis, this is not true at all. Isn’t this also a backhanded admission, based on his own argument, that more religious faith equals more people believing in the Virgin Birth?!)) <br>But I do think that we're in the middle of another religious Great Awakening, and that while this may bring spiritual comfort to many, it will also mean a growing polarization within our society. <br><br>But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. <br>(His wires are getting more crossed. He lumped the theologians with the scholars earlier. Here the scholars are at odds with the religious, which means the theologians are not part of the religious camp. We must accept this based on what only two theologians think. He disregards the fact that there are a great many theologians who accept the Virgin Birth’s veracity. How these can be faithful while remaining scholarly seems not to be an important issue to him, but in fact, which answer is at the very heart of his argument over faith and reason.) <br>I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain. <br>(Here he misses many things all at once: <br>1- a rich intellectual tradition is probably among the many avenues Islam has used evidentially to support their more “mystical” beliefs; <br>2- he doesn’t tell you whether it is an Islamic religious support of a belief in the Virgin Birth that moved them into a “crisis”; <br>3- this example does nothing to illustrate how Americans are moving in a different direction from the rest of the world. It actually supports his hidden and unrecognized implication that those who are Islamic are increasing their religious faith!; <br>4- lastly, it isn’t the brain religious or faithful people are trying to save, is it? Doesn’t it faze him at all that the miracles were reported via the New Testament in order that people could have faith and believe? They are not an appeal to the intellect for a very good reason which I will leave him to discover, since he’s so apparently intellectual himself.)<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]From your explanation, I assume that you meant something like "should the virgin, who bore Christ be celebrated?" Your choice of words in this sentence, however, makes it seem that the virgin birth itself is no exceptional value</font><hr></blockquote><p> Sorry you misunderstood it as such. I was referring to the TOP paragraphs of the article about the Catholic Church literally celebrating the virgin Mary.....As stated in the rest of my "brief" review the Virgin Birth is a necessary and historic event--see items 1-3 of my reply, which defends it. Thus "in context" it would be unfeasible to understand what I was posting as meaning the virgin birth of Christ was of no exceptional value. The very NEXT sentence clearly states the intent of the former: "I do not believe Mary would desire the honor and praise being pronounced upon her name."<br><br>But, your post brings up a very good point in apologetics. (1) I should have been clearer to avoid confusion (2) one must listen to everything before making an assumption on anything. Sometimes we take things out of their context. Just as the Catholics have taken the Virgin Mary out of her biblical context and made a cultic celebration in her, so we can do with other words as well. I am just as guilty here as the next person--preparing to say something, before the other person is even finished speaking.
The books I suggested are excellent in the field giving both sides of the issue--Frame and Sproul. Additionally, to them I would add Bahnsen's, Always Ready, which some nice soul here suggested and I completely concur.
Joe-<br><br>Certainly I accept that I am a relative newbie in most of the finer points of these discussions. I don't hesitate to ask for pardon for (unwittingly) stepping on your toes with my post. <br><br>I think maybe you're taking me to task too harshly, though. I understood your comment in the context it was presented, agree with it, and even if in an amateur way, presented Scripture in support of you with my allegedly tangential point.<br><br>It would probably have been much clearer if I'd said I find it ironic that even Jesus found the use of various unimpeachable sources of evidence to be of little use to those particular people with whom He was sharing. So my post *was* about the HOW TO share that's being discussed.<br><br>I accept my culpability for stepping over the request from the original poster that only those versed in these methods should reply................... it may indeed be true that only fools (speaking of myself) go where sometimes even angels fear to tread.<br><br>Cecil
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It would probably have been much clearer if I'd said I find it ironic that even Jesus found the use of various unimpeachable sources of evidence to be of little use to those particular people with whom He was sharing.</font><hr></blockquote><p> I understand now what you meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding....as in all our posts here sometimes it is heard to "understand" completely the author's intent.
Dear Mr. Kristof,<br><br>The virgin birth of Jesus is certainly a spectacular miracle. I suppose for those who approach this subject with a mindset pre-concieved against the possibilities of things supernatural, a belief in the virgin birth must seem very naive. Personally, I find it hard to concieve of any logical person looking around himself and trying to explain the existence of anything without having to eventually lay hold of something supernatural.<br><br>I think the real question here comes down to the trustworthiness of the Bible. How can a person who is sceptical of things supernatural, take seriously a book which claims so many miracles. Well sir, honestly, it is by faith that I believe in, and have been rescued by God and it is by faith that I am able to appreciate and love His Scripture. So how does my faith help you to overcome your doubt of the virgin birth? Well sir, I would say you need to examine very carefully what it is that my faith is based on. I am convinced that the Bible goes beyond being generally reliable and is in fact the infallible Word of God. If I could give you the faith I have in order to convince you I would, but that faith comes only from God Himself. I can however give you an outline of a procedure of examination which might bring you close enough to consider asking God for just such a faith.<br><br>Apply the same unbiased academic standards to an examination of the historical veracity of the Bible as you would to any other ancient document. When this is done (without bias) you will at least appreciate the fact that the Bible is a reliable and trustworthy document. That is premise A.<br><br>Premise B: On the basis of this reliable document you will find sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.<br><br>Premise C: Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.<br><br>Premise D: Jesus teaches that the Bible is more than generally trustworthy; it is the very Word of God.<br><br>Premise E: The word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is utterly trustworthy.<br><br>Conclusion: On the basis of the infallible authority of Jesus Christ, the Bible is utterly trustworthy---and, the Bible tells us that the virgin birth of Christ was a real, actual, event in history.<br><br>Mr. Kristof, you will note that this progression does not involve circular reasoning. The conclusion is not present in the first premise. There is a linear pattern of development. The argument is of course not infallible as each premise involves matters of inductive or deductive reasoning that is done by fallible human beings. But there is no subjective leap of faith found in the method. Rather the process involves careful historical, empirical investigation as well as logical inferences.<br><br>So start there Mr. Kristof--and I will be praying for you.<br><br><br>[]Paul, I believe the above would be considered classic apologetics. At least that is what Dr. R.C. Sproul considers himself to be, and I sort of paraphrased most of this from him. If you would like to read an interesting counter to classic apologetics, try reading the first 100 or so pages of "A New Systematic Theology of The Christian Faith" by Dr. Robert Reymond. Dr. Reymond is a staunch pre-suppositionalist.<br><br>God bless you Paul,<br>Stucco
Paul,<br><br>Without getting into the points of the article, I would simply say that evidence ("the facts") will always be interpreted through the lenses of one's core commitments, or presuppositions. Nobody is presuppositionally neutral. If one from the outset disallows for a virgin birth for instance, then such a one will always interpret the evidence of the virgin birth in some other light, unless he is converted to the truth. This is why I believe that the believer should assume the unbeliever's presuppositions for argument sake and then show how he contradicts himself at every turn. Then the apologist should show that the word of God provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience. <br><br>The Bible tells us to answer a fool according to his folly, but also to not do so lest we become like him. In answering the fool according to his folly, we assume the unbeliever’s position and try to reduce it to absurdity by showing the inconsistencies and arbitrariness of it. This is often called an “internal critique” because we are to show that the unbeliever’s commitments or presuppositions do not comport with his alleged commitment to atheism… But in another sense we should not answer the fool according to his folly; which is to say, we should not simply grant the tools of reason to the unbeliever (as if such tools comport with the tenets of atheism), without the believer first requiring the unbeliever to make sense of the tools of reason in light of his commitment to atheism. In other words, we ought not allow the unbeliever to use logic unless he can account for logic in light of his commitment to a worldview that simply says that everything is matter in motion. The unbeliever should be required to make such tools (logic, induction, ethics, etc.) comport with his core allegiance to autonomy and unbelief. <br><br>A believe the link below is the most useful article that comes to my mind regarding this matter. I think if anyone printed it out and truly snuggled up with it, he or she would be most blessed indeed.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron<br><br>http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA003.htm<br>
Paul:<br><br>Ron D in his statement and subsequent link has giving perfect reason as to why trying to prove the historicity of the Virgin Conception is a poor way to do apologetics. What needs to be challenged is Nicholas D. Kristof presuppositions. Which are as follows:<br><br>1.) Materialistic Philosophy<br><blockquote><span style="background-color:yellow;">Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view. <br>My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend.<br>Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians. </span></blockquote><br><br>2.) Anti-Scripture<br><blockquote>[color:blue]My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. Those kinds of mainline Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals.</font color=blue></blockquote><br><br>3.) Evangelicals as anti-intellectuals<br><blockquote>[color:green]The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. <br>The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America<br>But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain.</font color=green></blockquote><br><br>The response to this would be as said in the Bahnsen article:<br><blockquote>As Paul at Athens, we must demand a complete, change of world-outlook and presupposition (based on the authority of God's word) and not just a mere addition of a few facts.</blockquote><br><br>Now I am not going to add much to this too many other people have done a better job than I could besides this reply is much later than I wanted but my days have been spent programming so I haven't devoted the time to it as I wanted to. But I did find an article by J.P. Holding that answers all of the comments regarding the Virgin Conception (but not the bodily ascension or other papist claptrap) that Kristof raised in the article. <br>On the Virginal Conception and Birth of Jesus <br><br> <br><br><br> <br><br><br><br><br>
