To expound on Driscoll’s second comment in the previous post, if the authors of Scripture intentionally made up the virgin birth in order to appeal to followers of other religions, it would indeed make them liars. And what reason would we have to trust them when they tell us anything else? If they made up the virgin birth, what reason do we have to think they didn’t make up the teachings of Jesus? Or his miracles? Or the Resurrection?
So we lose the trustworthiness of Scripture if we lose the virgin birth, and as Driscoll points out, that means we lose everything we know about Jesus. Something else we lose is a Savior who is fully God and fully man. If Jesus was merely a man, regardless of what a great teacher or anything else he was, how can he be my advocate before God the Father?
While claiming to affirm historic doctrines like the Trinity and the virgin birth, Bell completely undercuts their authority and their centrality. He may personally retain most of the essentials of the faith, but he has no reason to suggest that anyone else believe them, other than that it’s “the best way to live.” I think Jesus came to do a lot more than show us the best way to live.
One thought on “Bell on the Virgin Birth (2)”
Well, I feel like he is just asking questions….
In the quote you put on the last entry…
He ended with a question…
Which, using Driscolls quote, you answered …
Does it all fall apart? YES!!
I think that is his point….
We shouldn’t just take the traditions that are handed down to us and go alright…”y’all believed it ….so it must be true….I’m not going to examine it test it, study the scriptures, and find out if it really holds up to critique….I’m going to believe it because thats how it has always been”
Now of course he could have questioned other traditions of Christianity….rather than two such sacred ones…ie Trinity and Virgin Birth….but would that have sold as many books!!??!!
Love your blogs….
Keep ’em coming