Comments on: The Unassumed Is the Unhealed https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc403/ Reformed Theological Resources Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:42:49 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1 By: Kyle https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc403/#comment-3395964 Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:42:49 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com?p=4489&preview_id=4489#comment-3395964 In reply to Todd Speidell.

To say the virgin birth was necessary as an announcement of God’s action in our midst seems to be saying a lot less than that it was intrinsic to that action. If that’s the case it doesn’t seem to me it would warrant being put along side the trinity and resurrection as an absolute pillar of orthodoxy.

]]> By: Todd Speidell https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc403/#comment-3394949 Sun, 20 Sep 2015 06:46:03 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com?p=4489&preview_id=4489#comment-3394949 The point is that it’s an act of God! The empty womb is a twin doctrine with the empty tomb. Christ didn’t need a fallen nature, but WE needed him to assume and heal our actual fallen humanity — which he did as God, who came as one of us for us. The virgin birth is not a moot point: It announces that God himself acted in our midst.

]]> By: Kyle https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc403/#comment-3394622 Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:34:20 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com?p=4489&preview_id=4489#comment-3394622 Interesting program. Can anyone speak to what the response of someone who believes Christ took on the fallen nature would be to the point of the virgin birth ? Seems moot. If Christ needed a fallen nature, couldn’t he have just gotten it from Joseph?

]]>