□ I read this on a link (Gospel Hall Hisory) from the Hill Street Gospel Hall, Coventry, website.:-

“We do not need to understand in order to believe; we believe and so we understand.”
This saying is quoted also on the covenantchristian.org website and attributed to Anselm (1033-1109).
Anselm, known as the father of scholasticism, was made “Doctor of the Church” by Pope Clement XI in 1710.
The statement quoted is at the heart of Calvinism and is a denial of the faith.
I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I could not do this without FIRST understanding that the gospel testimony of Jesus reveals a fulfilment of Scripture concerning the Messiah, Christ, the Anointed One.
Having believed, I spend my time learning more of Him.
But alas, the fruit of this Anselmic error remains with us. Our assemblies are full of people who “believed” when they were infants, without the faintest notion of what they believed.
If I believe the moon is made of green cheese, then I will understand that scientific theories to the contrary are mere guff.
My faith in Christ is based on realities, not moonshine.

A Reply to Michael Browne

A Reply to the article, Did the Jews accuse the Lord of being “born of fornication” (John 8: 41)?.

This article, written by Michael Browne, was published in Believers Magazine, issued Nov. 2010.

Mr Browne wrote,

“Not only is such a suggestion [that the Jews did imply that Christ was born of fornication] repugnant as a thought applied to our beloved Lord Jesus—it is purely speculative and unworthy of public expression”.

Of course it is a blasphemous slur against Christ and not the only one made by the Jews. The y called Him Beelzebub, the dung –god. Matt. 10: 25. Ought not one to demur at this also?

A careful read of John 8: 41 reveals exactly what the Jews thought of Christ. Their retort began with the demonstrative pronoun We. When we is used it always means “we, and not you”. The Jews were actually saying “We , not you, be not born of fornication.” The suggestion that spiritual fornication is meant is shown to be a nonsense and robs Scripture of its integrity.

Oliver Cromwell demanded that his portrait be painted, warts and all.

The warts of God’s enemies are painted into Scripture and assure us of its verbal inspiration. Men do not like the bad things to be recorded and would blot them out.

Mr Browne “adjusts” the meaning of Matt. 1: 19. He does so in order to defend his imagined view that the Jews , quote, “had not the slightest suspicion that Jesus was anything other than the son of Joseph and Mary, and brother to his Nazareth home siblings”.

Matt.1: 19 reads Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

The BM article assures their readers:-

“The incident in Matthew 1. 18-19 is clear evidence that the pregnancy of Mary was not a “public” scandal, and in order to keep it that way Joseph…..was minded to quietly hide her away somewhere”.

If Joseph and Mary were already married and the populace considered them to be so, why ever would he think to hide her away?

The fact is the couple were in the Jewish state of betrothal, and had not formally come together. The betrothal was binding but divorce was permitted at this stage but forbidden after the coming together. See Matt. 19: 9.

The putting away is in Greek apoluo. And is the same word in Matt.1: 19 as in Matt. 19: 9.

Browne’s “hiding away” is an abuse of Scripture. It is divorce in view.

This may be the stumbling block today for those who allow divorce and remarriage today. They attempt to apply Matt.19: 9 to modern marriage practice and ignore the distinction between betrothal and marriage in Jewish custom. This opens the way for divorce due to fornication/adultery being accepted by some today. We suggest this is what prompted the writing of this strange BM article.

The “taking unto him” of Mary (Matt. 1: 24) was the formal act of marriage, following the betrothal. It was not done in secret.

In order to deflect criticism from those better taught, Mr Browne wrote “there is not one whit of evidence to support such an offensive construction [that the Jews were taunting Christ with His supposed illegitimate birth]”

Here is the evidence that Mr Browne chose to ignore. Are all these guilty of offensive construction?

1. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

John 8:41 . Even the insult of Jesus’ enemies shows that the circumstances of his birth had stirred general gossip, as might be expected if the story spread. Jesus said to them, “ ‘You are doing the things your own father [Satan] does.’ ‘We are not illegitimate children,’ they protested. ‘The only Father we have is God himself.” The Jews may have simply been responding defensively to Jesus’ attack on their misplaced confidence in the fatherhood of Abraham. If so, it is an odd rejoinder. But it makes perfect sense if they were turning the argument back on Jesus’ own legitimacy. Even Joseph had needed an angelic visitation to be convinced Mary’s purity ( Matt. 1:20 ). He and Mary likely faced a continuing shadow on their reputations. But Jesus faced the matter boldly in responding to his sniggering accusers, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” ( John 8:46 ).

2. Waymarks Contender. No.63; Nov.2010

. Matthew 1: 25

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn (protokos) son.  AVB

“but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son” NRSV

This NRSV rendering is ambiguous and not only because “firstborn” is omitted. It allows the possibility of extra-marital relations in the form of fornication. This was the slander of the Pharisees, We be not born of fornication (Jn. 8: 41. The NRSV also mistranslates this verse.)

The virgin birth of Christ is questioned by the NRSV and most other modern versions. It is no longer believed by modern clerics and theologians. Archbishop Tutu has publicly questioned Mary’s morality. It is however a fundamental truth essential to our salvation.

protokos is well attested, being found in the majority of manuscripts and in ancient versions.

3. The Virgin Birth of Christ by Gresham Machen

Jesus according to this Jewish Polemic was really the fruit of an adulterous relationship with a certain soldier whose name was Pantheras. (p.10)

4.International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Ed. Geoffrey Bromily. P.992

In Jn. 78: 41Jesus’ opponents insist ”we were not born of fornication.” Here “we” is emphatic, perhaps by way of contrast: “not we, but you?” Thus Jn. 8: 41 may reflect early suspicions about Jesus’ parentage, which Jewish polemics later made explicit.

5. Robertson’s Word Pictures, Mat. 1 19

The Talmud openly charges this sin [fornication] against Mary

Mr Browne’s article is not a fair and accurate presentation of the truth