基督徒必須相信童女生子嗎？MustChristians Believe in the Virgin Birth?
作者: Albert Mohler 翻譯: Maria Marta
12月25日轉瞬而至，世俗媒體肯定再一次將興趣轉到童女生子這議題上。每年聖誕節，各地新聞周刊和各種主編都會異口同聲地哀嘆：太多美國人相信這種不科學、超自然的教義。對一些人而言，相信耶穌基督是童女所生，無異於證實自己的理智模糊不清。《紐約時報》的一位作家坦白地慨嘆：「童女生子的信仰反映了隨著時間的推移，美國基督教變得更智力低下和更加神秘的狀況。」
相信童女生子導致基督徒「智力低下」嗎？
我們承擔著一項站不住腳的教義嗎？ 一個真基督徒可以否認童女生子，又或者這項教義是聖經啟示給我們的福音的一個重要構成部分嗎？
在歷史批判出現，和隨後不可避免的聖經權威被削弱之後, 童女生子是首批被質疑，後又遭拒絕的教義之一。批評者聲稱，既然這項教義「只」在四本福音書中的兩本裡教導，那麼它必定是選擇性的。他們論證, 使徒保羅在他的使徒行傳裡的講道中沒有提及童女生子，因此他一定不相信它。除此之外，批評家們還論證這項教義正是這樣的超自然。現代異教徒，如已退休的聖公會主教謝爾比朋（John Shelby Spong）論證這項教義只不過是早期教會聲稱基督的神性的證據。比朋告訴我們，童女生子是「神話的開頭」與復活的「神話的結局」相呼應而已。但願比朋之說是一個神話。
現在，甚至一些修正主義福音派學者（revisionist
evangelicals）也聲稱，相信童女生子是不必要的。他們論證，神跡具有永恒的意義，但這一項教義的歷史真相是不重要的。
成為基督徒, 必須相信童女生子嗎？可以想像，有人可能來到基督的面前，相信基督是救主，但還沒有了解基督是童女所生的聖經教導。一個新信徒還未清楚認識基督信仰的整體架構而已。但真正的問題是：一個曾经知道聖經教導的基督徒，可以拒絕童女生子嗎？答案必然是否定的。
馬太福音告訴我們，馬利亞和約瑟「還沒有成親」，馬利亞「就從聖靈懷了孕」（太一18）。馬太福音對此的解釋是，以賽亞的應許得著應驗：「必有童女懷孕生子，他的名要叫以馬內利」, 翻譯出來是「神與我們同在」的意思（太一23，賽九6-7）。
路加福音甚至提供更具體的細節，顯示一位到訪的天使向馬利亞解釋,
她雖然是童女，但將懷有神聖的兒子：「聖靈要臨到你，至高者的能力要覆庇你，因此那將要出生的聖者，必稱為 神的兒子。」（路一35）
那怕只有一段聖經段落教導童女生子，亦足以讓所有基督徒有相信的義務。我們沒有權利以聖經中童女生子的重覆次數來衡量聖經教導的真實性。我們不能聲稱相信聖經是上帝的聖言，一轉過身，就懷疑它的教導。
埃裏克（Millard Erickson）的說明非常精辟「盡管聖經斷言童女生子的事實, 但我們若不堅持這一事實, 我們便妥協了聖經的權威，原則上我們沒有理由為何要堅持其他的教導。因此，拒絕童女生子所產生的影響遠遠超出教義本身的範圍。」
的確影響深遠。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，誰是祂的父親？沒有答案會讓福音完整無缺。童女生子解釋基督如何成為即神又人，祂如何是無罪的，和整個救贖之工是上帝恩慈的行動。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，祂就有一個人類父親。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，聖經便在教導謊言。
福音派神學家兼院長卡爾（Carl F. H. Henry）论证, 童女生子是「絕對必要的，道成肉身的歷史迹象不僅類比道成肉身的神性和人性，而且也顯明上帝拯救工作的本質、目的, 和意義。」 說得好，信得穩固。
國家新聞雜志和報紙最世俗的編輯可能發現，美國基督徒當中的智力遲鈍的證據，就是相信童女生子。但童女生子是教會的信仰，建立在上帝完美的聖言之上，被古往今來的真教會珍愛。那些否認童女生子的人承認其他教義只是憑一時的興致，因為他們已經放棄聖經的權威。他們削弱了基督的本性, 廢棄了道成肉身的信仰。
基督徒務必面對一個事實，即否認童女生子就是否認耶穌是基督。為我們的罪受死的救主不是別人，正是聖靈感孕, 由童貞女所生的嬰孩。童女生子不是因為聖經教義而得以站立，它是聖經關於基督的位格和工作的啟示缺不能削減的一部分。福音站立或跌倒, 全憑這教義。
我們務必要知道：所有找到救恩的人都是藉著耶穌基督贖罪的工作得救。少於這真理就不是基督信仰，不管它自我宣稱什麼。一個基督徒不會否認童女生子。
本譯文所引用的經文均出自聖經新譯本。
本文原刊于Tabletalk雜誌。
Must
Christians Believe in the Virgin Birth?
FROM
Albert Mohler With December 25 fast approaching, the secular media are sure to
turn their interest once again to the virgin birth. Every Christmas, weekly
news magazines and various editorialists engage in a collective gasp that so
many Americans could believe such an unscientific, supernatural doctrine. For
some, the belief that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin is nothing less than
evidence of intellectual dimness. One writer for the New York Times put the
lament plainly: “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American
Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time.”
Does
belief in the virgin birth make Christians “less intellectual?” Are we saddled
with an untenable doctrine? Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth, or is
the doctrine an essential component of the Gospel revealed to us in Scripture?
The
doctrine of the virgin birth was among the first to be questioned and then
rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical
authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is
taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be optional. The apostle
Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not
have believed it. Besides, the critics argued, the doctrine is just so
supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong
argue the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of
Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the
resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.
Now,
even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the virgin birth is
unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the
historical truth of the doctrine is not important.
Must
one believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian? It is conceivable that
someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning
the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet
aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can
a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the virgin birth? The
answer must be no.
Matthew
tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be
with child by the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:18). This, Matthew explains, fulfilled
what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a
Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with
Us’” (Matt. 1:23, Isaiah 9:6-7).
Luke
provides even greater detail, revealing Mary was visited by an angel who
explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy
Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).
Even
if the virgin birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be
sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh
the truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We
cannot claim to believe the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and
cast suspicion on its teaching.
Millard
Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the
fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the
Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other
teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far
beyond the doctrine itself.”
Implications,
indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no
answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The virgin birth explains how Christ
could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of
salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a
human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.
Carl
F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argues that the virgin birth
is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only
an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing
out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well
said, and well believed.
The
secularist editors of the nation’s news magazines and newspapers may find
belief in the virgin birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among
American Christians. But this is the faith of the church, established in God’s
perfect Word, and cherished by the true church throughout the ages. Those who
deny the virgin birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they
have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined
Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.
Christians
must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as
the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who
was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does
not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the
biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the
Gospel stands or falls.
This
much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of
Jesus the Christ, the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not
Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A Christian will not deny the virgin
birth.
This
post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.
