THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT
Both are Biblical and therefore true.
Both are a part of most lists of fundamental doctrines to be believed.
The substitutionary atonement of Christ is foundational.
The virgin birth is peripheral.
The substitutionary atonement has to be applied to the individual.
The virgin birth is something a Christian believes, but its application is not necessary for salvation.
Neither the personal acceptance of the virgin birth nor the biblical truth of it is necessary for salvation.
The substitutionary atonement is intrinsic to the Christian faith.
The virgin birth of Christ is extrinsic to the Christian faith.
I had better stop now and do some explaining before I get my friends too mad at me. I had better make it plain that I believe in the virgin birth and I believe in the substitutionary atonement. What is the difference?
There was no biological necessity for Christ to have been born of a virgin. God had said He would be, and God's Word could not be broken so that He had to be. But He did not have to be in order to maintain or establish His perfection. Jesus Christ is impeccable - unable to sin, and had not God's Word said He would be born of a virgin, He could have been born of a harlot and been no less perfect. None of Christ's perfection is due to anything Mary did, was, or did not do.
It may surprise some people to know that the Bible does not teach the virgin birth. The Bible teaches virginal conception. The Roman Catholic Church will say that Mary's biological virginal integrity was preserved as Christ came into the world. The Bible says nothing about that.
The Catholic Church will say that Mary's virginity was intact throughout her entire life. The Bible plainly discounts this (Matthew 13:56, Psalm 68:9).
The late Mother Teresa said we should venerate Mary because "she gave Jesus His Body." The Bible says His Body was provided by the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 10:5).
The argument is given that if the Body of Jesus was not formed using Mary's reproductive system, Jesus would not have been truly human. But we can easily understand that when God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, Adam was completely human, as was Eve. Neither Adam nor Eve were the product of any usual human reproduction, yet no one will argue that they were not fully human.
That the body of Mary nourished the baby Jesus as He grew to the time he was born is indisputable. Her providing for her unborn Baby did not open for her a special sphere of mediation any more than the women who ministered to Christ and His Apostles had any part in the Redemption He would purchase on Calvary.
We are all used to seeing Christmas cards with a picture of a young mother with a halo around her head, and singing "Round yon virgin, mother and child." In the strict sense of the word virgin, Mary was no longer biologically a virgin. Normally the process of conception does away with virginity, but God performed a miracle and the body His Son would inhabit was placed in Mary's womb. Then, the birth process, which is never even hinted in scripture to be less than normal, would have destroyed her biological virginity.
One of the definitions given in Webster's Dictionary for maiden (used as a synonym for virgin) is never having borne young. Using this definition, Mary would have ceased to be a virgin when Christ was born.
Christians do not find this truth to be abhorrent, but it is sacrilege for a Roman Catholic. It is one of the pivotal areas that contrasts the biblical Christ Who was perfect in Himself and did a perfect work of redemption with the unbiblical "christ" of Roman Catholicism who needed human aid to maintain his perfection and still needs human help to manifest his salvation.