Fundamentals Volume 1-Dyson Hague, Howard A. Kelly, G. Campbell Morgan, James Orr, Arthur T. Pierson, Reuben Archer Torrey

THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST by James Orr it is well known that the last ten or twenty years have been marked by a determined assault upon the truth of the virgin birth of christ in the year eighteen ninety two a great controversy broke out in germany owing to the refusal of a pastor named schrempf to use the apostles creed in baptism because of disbelief in this and other articles Schrempf was deposed, and an agitation commenced against the doctrine of the virgin birth, which has grown in volume ever since.

Other tendencies especially, the rise of an extremely radical school of historical criticism, added force to the negative movement.

The attack is not confined, indeed, to the article of the virgin birth.

It affects the whole supernatural estimate of Christ, his life, his claims, his sinlessness, his miracles, his resurrection from the dead.

but the virgin birth is assailed with special vehemence because it is supposed that the evidence for this miracle is more easily got rid of than the evidence for public facts such as the resurrection the result is that in very many quarters the virgin birth of christ is openly treated as a fable belief in it is scouted as unworthy of the twentieth century intelligence the methods of the oldest opponents of christianity are revived and it is likened to the greek and roman stories coarse and vile of heroes who had gods for their fathers a special point is made of the silence of paul and of the other writings of the new testament on this alleged wonder the unhappiest feature it is not only however in the circles of unbelief that the virgin birth is discredited in the church itself the habit is spreading of casting doubt upon the fact or at least of regarding it as no essential part of christian faith this is the unhappiest feature of this unhappy controversy Till recently no one dreamed of denying that, in the sincere profession of Christianity, this article, which has stood from the beginning in the foremost of all the great creeds of Christendom, was included.

Now it is different.

The truth and value of the article of the virgin birth are challenged.

The article, it is affirmed, did not belong to the earliest Christian tradition, and the evidence for it is not strong.

Therefore let it drop.

the company it keeps from the side of criticism science mythology history and comparative religion assault is thus made on the article long so dear to the hearts of christians and rightly deemed by them so vital to their faith for loud as is the voice of denial one fact must strike every careful observer of the conflict among those who reject the virgin birth of the lord few will be found i do not know any who take in other respects an adequate view of the person and work of the saviour it is surprising how clearly the line of division here reveals itself My statement, publicly made and printed, has never been confuted that those who accept a full doctrine of the Incarnation, that is, of a true entrance of the Eternal Son of God into our nature for the purpose of man's salvation, with hardly an exception, accept it with the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ, while those who repudiate or deny this article of faith either hold a lowered view of Christ's person or, more commonly, reject his supernatural claims altogether.

it will not be questioned at any rate that the great bulk of the opponents of the virgin birth those who are conspicuous by writing against it are in the latter class a cavil answered this really is an answer to the cavil often heard that whether true or not the virgin birth is not of essential importance it is not essential it is urged to christ's sinlessness for that would have been secured equally though christ had been born of two parents and it is not essential to the incarnation a hazardous thing surely for erring mortals to judge of what was and was not essential in so stupendous an event as the bringing in of the first-begotten into the world but the christian instinct has ever penetrated deeper rejection of the virgin birth seldom if ever goes by itself As the late Professor A.B. Bruce said, with denial of the virgin birth is apt to go denial of the virgin life.

The incarnation is felt by those who think seriously to involve a miracle in Christ's earthly origin.

This will become clearer as we advance.

the case stated it is the object of this paper to show that those who take the lines of denial on the virgin birth just sketched do great injustice to the evidence and importance of the doctrine they reject the evidence if not of the same public kind as for the resurrection is far stronger than the objector allows and the fact denied enters far more vitally into the essence of the christian faith than he supposes placed in its right setting among the other truths of the christian religion it is not only no stumbling-block to faith but is felt to fit in with self-evidencing power into the connection of these other truths and to furnish the very explanation that is needed of christ's holy and supernatural person the ordinary christian is a witness here in reading the gospels he feels no incongruity in passing from the narratives of the virgin birth to the wonderful story of christ's life in the chapters that follow then from these to the pictures of christ's divine dignity given in john and paul the whole is of one piece the virgin birth is as natural at the beginning of the life of such an one the divine son as the resurrection is at the end and the more closely the matter is considered the stronger does this impression grow it is only when the scriptural conception of christ is parted with that various difficulties and doubts come in a superficial view it is in truth a very superficial way of speaking or thinking of the virgin birth to say that nothing depends on this belief for our estimate of christ who that reflects on the subject carefully can fail to see that if christ was virgin-born if he was truly conceived as the creed says by the holy spirit born of the virgin mary there must of necessity enter a supernatural element into his person while if christ was sinless much more if he was the very word of god incarnate there must have been a miracle the most stupendous miracle in the universe in his origin if christ was as john and paul affirm and his church has ever believed the son of god made flesh the second adam the new redeeming head of the race a miracle was to be expected in his earthly origin Without a miracle such a person could never have been.

Why then cavil at the narratives which declare the fact of such a miracle? Who does not see that the gospel history would have been incomplete without them? Inspiration here only gives to faith what faith on its own grounds imperatively demands for its perfect satisfaction.