Are SBC Ministers required to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Christ?

[Aaron]

What suspense? You're most likely going to cite Exodus 20:5 like most, but that verse doesn't say that anything is passed to the children in the sense that most folks mean when they comment on the supposed necessity for the Virgin Birth, and "fathers" simply means ancestors.

If not Exodus 20:5, then you'll cite one or more verses from Romans 5 or some other that says simply we all sinned in Adam. That's true, but to think of sin passing like genetic traits is the wrong idea.

The Virgin Birth was a sign, not necessity.

Anyway, more later. I'm out of time!

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
The SBC does not dictate to the individual churches,

I understand that the SBC does not dictate to the local church but, does the local church get to dictate to the SBC that they can be a member of the SBC regardless of what the local churches believes?

My local church was SBC from 1925 till about 1962 when they decided to "go independent". We did not change any doctrine or disagree with anything in the statement of belief. We still feel a strong affection for SBC beliefs so, this is not a slam against the SBC.

ergo, it is possible for someone to claim to be SBC and not even be Christian, just as it is always possible for anyone to claim to be Baptist or Christian, and not really be Baptist or Christian.

The difference is that they are not "claiming" to be SBC, they ARE SBC. The SBC is a big outfit and it is not possible for them to be aware of every detail of every church, I understand that, but, once it becomes known that a pastor is teaching that the virgin birth is NOT true and they continue to acknowledge that that church is a member in good standing then it is de facto NOT a deal breaker and IS acceptable with the SBC.

 

[Jeffrey H]

The Virgin Birth was not of necessity, it was for a sign.

What does the sign represent or signify? It's only a "sign" and nothing more?

 

[TexasSky]

Quoted: The Virgin Birth was not of necessity, it was for a sign.

I believe it was a necessity.

Even during His time as a man on earth, people looked to Christ and said, "Isn't He the Carpentar's son." The lineage of Christ is unquestionable. There is no "earthly" Father.

Beyond that - prophecy dictated that the Messiah would be born of God, not man.

 

[Bro Tony]

Quoted: The Virgin Birth was not of necessity, it was for a sign.

What nonsense. Of course it was necessary, whether you say it was only for a sign or for some other reason. It was necessary because it was part of God's plan--period. That people debate the reason for the virgin birth, and that they come up with different reasons for it, does not change the fact the it was necessary.

This whole thread shows that clearly there can be a person claiming to be Baptist (Southern or otherwise) and be as lost as a goose in high grass.

GB- I understand your point about following Jesus. But if you are following the wrong Jesus he will lead you to hell. I would say it is not an either/or proposition. We need to have the right Jesus (the One who fulfills all biblical requirements) and we need to follow Him.

Bro Tony

 

[GODzThunder]

I am a little suprised that (unless I missed it) nobody corrected the statement that SBC ministers are to believe in the immaculate conception of Christ. The immaculate conception is a doctrine that does not primarily focus on Jesus but teaches that Mary was born without sin and was perfect so that she could give birth to Jesus. So in short we are not required to believe in the immaculate conception and should not as it is unbiblical, we believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ as that is plainly taught in the Bible, unless you have a mistranslation (I am not KJ only but this is one reason why I am leary of some other Bibles).

 

[USN2Pulpit]

GT, that's the same thing I thought. Many people have a misunderstanding of what "immaculate conception" refers to.

 

[Johnv]

Not exactly, GODzThunder. You're referring to the immaculate conception of Mary, a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but not a doctrine of scripture. The immaculate conception of Jesus is indeed a doctrine of scripture.

The RCC doctrine stems froom the Jewish tradition that heritage is passed via the maternal line. In this same manner, it was believed that original sin was passed in like manner. It was deduced that if Mary was born with original sin, then Jesus would have received original sin from his mother upon conception. Hence, RCC theosiphers believed that Mary must have been concieved without original sin to qualify her as being fit to bear the Savior. Today, we no longer hold to original sin being a physical trait, but instead a spiritual trait, so there is no need for adhering to this belief.

The term "immaculate conception", when used by itself, is typically presumed to refer to the marian doctrine of the RCC. However, to refer to the immaculate conception of Christ as the concept of Christ being born without original sin is technically correct.

 

[USN2Pulpit]

true...

 

[Aaron]

Sky:
I believe it was a necessity.

...The lineage of Christ is unquestionable. There is no "earthly" Father.

Beyond that - prophecy dictated that the Messiah would be born of God, not man.

Tony:
It was necessary because it was part of God's plan--period.

If you folks had been paying attention, you would have seen that I said the virgin birth was not a necessity for the sinlessness of Christ. That it was necessary because it was part of God's plan to be the "seed of the woman" is unquestionable. But to think that God was helpless and could find no other way to bring His Son into the world and was constrained by necessity to adopt this method is, in my opinion, highly presumptuous.

 

[TexasSky]

Aaron,

With all due respect, that is not what you said in the original post. You wrote The Virgin Birth was not of necessity, it was for a sign. God just as easily could have created a body for Christ in "the family way" (so to speak) as to make a body for Him from a virgin.

 

[Circuitrider]

Originally posted by Petrel:
The challenge against the Virgin Birth arises from the belief that Matthew and Luke were newer gospels and that before they were written Jesus was thought to have been born normally of human parents. We're not helped by the fact that the Virgin Birth is nowhere explicitly prophesied--we only have the double prophecy about a young woman bearing a child. Nevertheless I think that it is a required doctrine. If Jesus was born normally and Joseph was really his father, than he would be fully human and would have the normal fallen nature that we all have.

I may have misunderstood this statement, but I would disagree with it as it stands "...the virgin birth is nowhere explicitly prophesied--we only have the double prophecy about a young woman bearing a child."

Isaiah 7:14 makes a clear statement about the virgin birth. "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son...." The RSV 1940/50s edition changed this word or at least footnoted it as possibly meaning "young woman" rather than "virgin." However if we interpret scripture with scripture we must go to Matthew 1 where this verse is quoted in the following way, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son."

While the OT Hebrew word might give the latitude of translation including either "virgin" or "young woman", the NT word quoting that passage gives the meaning as "virgin." Thus Isaiah's prophecy based upon principles of interpretation should be rightfully translated "virgin" and along with Matthew 1 is clearly a prediction of the virgin birth.

Now as to the question about it being required for Southern Baptists, I don't have a clue. As a good independent fundament Baptist I do know that it is one of the fundamentals of the faith and therefore an essential belief for anyone involved in ministry.

 

[Marcia]

I don't think it's an issue of whether Mary had to be or did not have to be a virgin so much as what scripture says:

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed [2] to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” [3] 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” [4]

35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born [5] will be called holy—the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” Lk 1.26-37

If one denies the virgin birth, then one is not believing the Bible.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Circuitrider:
While the OT Hebrew word might give the latitude of translation including either "virgin" or "young woman", the NT word quoting that passage gives the meaning as "virgin." Thus Isaiah's prophecy based upon principles of interpretation should be rightfully translated "virgin" and along with Matthew 1 is clearly a prediction of the virgin birth.

While I agree it is a prophecy of Jesus' birth, I don't think that it ought to be translated "virgin" in the Old Testament because it was a double prophecy. At that time Jerusalem was under siege, and Isaiah was sent to tell King Ahaz that it would not be overpowered and King Rezim and King Pekah, and both would be overthrown in the near future.

God said that a sign to confirm that this would happen would be a child born to a young woman. Before the child was old enough to discern right from wrong the two kings would be destroyed.

If we take this prophecy as only applying to Jesus' birth, it makes no sense. Why would God tell Ahaz he would send a sign of the kings' impending destruction and then send the sign almost a millenia after they'd all died?

Since obviously the child born at that time could not be born of a virgin (unless you think there were two virgin births!), I don't think the translation of "virgin" is correct in the Old Testament context.

 

[Bro Tony]

But to think that God was helpless and could find no other way to bring His Son into the world and was constrained by necessity to adopt this method is, in my opinion, highly presumptuous

No one here said God was helpless. Where are you coming from. No one here is being presumptuous either. No one here is saying God is constrained to any method. The Bible teaches the virgin birth----Period! For you or anyone else to offer a different way or the possibility of a different way is for you to presume that you know better than God. He chose the way and that settles it. If you choose not to believe it than you don't believe the Bible. If you deny the Bible than you don't believe God. If you don't believe God you have made yourself the final authority. If you are the final authority see how far that gets you in eternity.

Good Day,

Bro Tony

 

[just-want-peace]

We're not helped by the fact that the Virgin Birth is nowhere explicitly prophesied--we only have the double prophecy about a young woman bearing a child.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Mat 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.

Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Ignore the modern versions that want to change the meaning and use "young woman"! Just liberalism at work

Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

This comment by Mary should remove any doubt!!

 

[Petrel]

Did you see my post above? Because this was a double prophecy translating the word as "virgin" in Isaiah is misleading at best.

 

[TexasSky]

Petrel,

Your objection to Ahaz makes no sense. There was only one Immanuel in history.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Aaron,

With all due respect, that is not what you said in the original post.

Yes it is. If you will go back and read it again, this time understanding that my original post included a quote from someone who said that the Virgin Birth was necessary for the sinlessness of Christ, then there should be no more confusion about the matter.

 

[Petrel]

I don't recall objecting to Ahaz in the slightest. . .

There was a human boy who was called Immanuel back about three millenia ago. Then there was Jesus who was God and called Immanuel.

It makes no sense to interpret the passage as referring only to Jesus unless you think that God is so absent-minded that he often sends signs almost a thousand years after they'll do any good to the person he promised them to.