Is Andy Stanley Ho-Humming the Virgin Birth?

[InTheLight]

Andy Stanley, founder of North Point Ministries, a network of six congregations across the Atlanta metropolitan area attended by 30,000 worshippers a week, suggested he doesn’t have a problem with people who doubt the Virgin Birth. In a message on December 3rd he said that one of the challenging things about Christmas is the “unbelievable” nature of stories in the Bible describing Jesus’ miraculous conception.

Stanley said he is less concerned about the Virgin Birth than with the Resurrection. “If somebody can predict their own death and their own resurrection, I’m not all that concerned about how they got into the world, because the whole resurrection thing is so amazing,” he said. “Christianity doesn’t hinge on the truth or even the stories around the birth of Jesus,” Stanley said. “It really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus.”

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., took exception to Stanley’s view in a Dec. 16 podcast describing the Bible stories about Christ’s incarnation as “the central truth claim of Christmas.”

“Just in recent days, one Christian leader was quoted as saying that if Jesus predicted his death and then was raised from the dead, it doesn’t matter how he came into the world,” Mohler said. “But the Bible insists it really does matter and the answer given from Scripture very clear in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of Luke is that Jesus was born to a virgin.”

Mohler said attacks on the Virgin Birth became popular in the aftermath of the Enlightenment in the form of attempts “to harmonize the anti-supernaturalism of the modern mind with the church’s historic teaching about Christ.”

“The great question of liberal theology has been to invent a Jesus who was stripped of all supernatural power, deity, status and authority,” Mohler said. “And in order to do that they have to begin by denying what the Bible so clearly teaches in terms of the Virgin Birth.”

https://baptistnews.com/article/virgin-birth-debate-interrupts-regular-war-on-christmas-program/

What say you? Is Andy Stanley weakening the Virgin Birth? Is he denying it?

 

[TCassidy]

To deny the virgin birth is to deny the sinlessness of Christ. And if He had to pay for His own sins on the cross He could not have paid for our.

 

[Yeshua1]

To deny the virgin birth is to deny the sinlessness of Christ. And if He had to pay for His own sins on the cross He could not have paid for our.

Agreed, as he had to conme that way, by Holy Spirit conceiving Him, in order to avoid taint of Original Sin. To see it as he does also undermines prophet Isaiah!

 

[Revmitchell]

Scripture prophesies the virgin birth therefore it is just as important as the resurrection. Trying to pit one against the other in the sense of importance is silly.

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture prophesies the virgin birth therefore it is just as important as the resurrection. Trying to pit one against the other in the sense of importance is silly.

Agreed, its like saying which is more important, Jesus death or his resurrection?

 

[InTheLight]

Well, I think he's weakening the teaching of the Virgin Birth.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, I think he's weakening the teaching of the Virgin Birth.

I think it goes well beyond weakening

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, I think he's weakening the teaching of the Virgin Birth.

Think more like denying it happened!

 

[Baptist Believer]

What say you? Is Andy Stanley weakening the Virgin Birth? Is he denying it?

I went to listen to the message before commenting, and I don't have a problem with what he said.

He is simply trying to put the focus in the right place. The virgin birth of Jesus is true whether or not anyone believes it, but it is NOT essential to faith and it is probably NOT the way to introduce people to Jesus. Once you understand the reality of the resurrection, you can go back and hear the story of the virgin birth (omitted by both Mark and John's Gospel), and have confidence in it.

This seems to me to be nit-picking at Andy Stanley that is possibly motivated by other things.

If you go after Andy Stanley for this, you must go criticize Mark and John for their "ho-humming" (or worse) of the virgin birth of Christ to be consistent.

 

[InTheLight]

He is simply trying to put the focus in the right place. The virgin birth of Jesus is true whether or not anyone believes it, but it is NOT essential to faith and it is probably NOT the way to introduce people to Jesus.

That's not what he said. He said, "Christianity doesn't hinge on the truth surrounding Jesus' birth", meaning the virgin birth. I'm sorry, but if you don't have a virgin birth, you don't have the incarnation, if you don't have God as man you don't have the perfect sacrifice for our sins. The whole thing collapses without the virgin birth.

Once you understand the reality of the resurrection, you can go back and hear the story of the virgin birth (omitted by both Mark and John's Gospel), and have confidence in it.

I can have confidence in the virgin birth even before Jesus was resurrected based on the prophecy in Isaiah.

This seems to me to be nit-picking at Andy Stanley that is possibly motivated by other things.

I would scarcely say that defending the virgin birth was nit-picking, and besides I've defended Stanley on BB in other threads.

If you go after Andy Stanley for this, you must go criticize Mark and John for their "ho-humming" (or worse) of the virgin birth of Christ to be consistent.

Non sequitur.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Baptist Believer]

That's not what he said. He said, "Christianity doesn't hinge on the truth surrounding Jesus' birth", meaning the virgin birth. I'm sorry, but if you don't have a virgin birth, you don't have the incarnation, if you don't have God as man you don't have the perfect sacrifice for our sins. The whole thing collapses without the virgin birth.

If you listened to his sermon that inspired this controversy, it was part of an introduction to tell the LONG story of Jesus, going back to a couple who could not have children and then miraculously could (Abram and Sarai). Stanley is putting the virgin birth in the context of the bigger story.

Moreover, Jesus Himself did NOT point to His virgin birth as the "hinge" of truth about Who He was and whether or not what He said was true. He pointed to the resurrection.

What you are doing is looking at the virgin birth in terms of systematic theology, not biblical narrative. You are also assuming that God could not have been incarnate another way than through the virgin birth. God could do it any way He wants. He did it through a virgin birth, but that does not mean that it could not be done some other way.

I can have confidence in the virgin birth even before Jesus was resurrected based on the prophecy in Isaiah.

If you go back at look carefully at the Isaiah passage, it refers to a "young woman" being with child, not necessarily a sexually-inexperienced one. The "virgin" of Isaiah gave birth during the time of Isaiah and may have even been his wife. The birth was a sign to the people of his age.

Now, it also turned into a foreshadowing of the birth of Jesus as understood in Matthew's gospel, but we need to read Isaiah FIRST as his contemporaries would have heard it and then understand the relevance in light of Jesus second.

I would scarcely say that defending the virgin birth was nit-picking, and besides I've defended Stanley on BB in other threads.

I don't think anyone has to "defend" the virgin birth against Andy Stanley - especially based on his comments in context. The people who raised this issue about Stanley may have some issues with him in regard to his father and Andy Stanley's distancing from his father's ministry.

I could personally care less either way about Andy Stanley, I don't have much of an opinion about him at all. I just recognize these kind of attacks for what they are.

Non sequitur.

Hardly. If the virgin birth (in a biblical narrative sense) is as important as the resurrection, then both Mark and John would have included it.

From what I can tell, Stanley preaching from a biblical narrative (story) perspective rather than a systematic theology perspective. He's also preaching to people who may be quite skeptical and doesn't want to demand that they believe something before they are ready. He's giving his audience the room to make up their own mind instead of demanding that they accept every facet of the gospel story all at once. He is providing his audience a safe way to hear without providing immediate intellectual challenges for them.

 

[InTheLight]

What you are doing is looking at the virgin birth in terms of systematic theology, not biblical narrative. You are also assuming that God could not have been incarnate another way than through the virgin birth. God could do it any way He wants. He did it through a virgin birth, but that does not mean that it could not be done some other way.

That's a big can of worms you just opened. So, if the incarnation was to be accomplished by some other means than the virgin birth, doesn't that mean that Jesus would have become God at some point in his life?

If you go back at look carefully at the Isaiah passage, it refers to a "young woman" being with child, not necessarily a sexually-inexperienced one.

Yes, that is the liberal interpretation of it. Traditionally the majority interpretation has been virgin.

Now, it also turned into a foreshadowing of the birth of Jesus as understood in Matthew's gospel, but we need to read Isaiah FIRST as his contemporaries would have heard it and then understand the relevance in light of Jesus second.

Foreshadowing? Is that all? Surely you mean prophecy.

I don't think anyone has to "defend" the virgin birth against Andy Stanley - especially based on his comments in context. The people who raised this issue about Stanley may have some issues with him in regard to his father and Andy Stanley's distancing from his father's ministry.

I'm raising it and I don't know diddly about the relationship between the two Stanley's.

Hardly. If the virgin birth (in a biblical narrative sense) is as important as the resurrection, then both Mark and John would have included it.

I see. So following that logic the resurrection of Lazarus, which IS a foreshadowing of Jesus' resurrection, is unimportant since it's only in John.

I'm sure there are other examples. And I'm sure inclusion or not including a particular example is not necessarily an indicator of importance.

From what I can tell, Stanley preaching from a biblical narrative (story) perspective rather than a systematic theology perspective. He's also preaching to people who may be quite skeptical and doesn't want to demand that they believe something before they are ready. He's giving his audience the room to make up their own mind instead of demanding that they accept every facet of the gospel story all at once. He is providing his audience a safe way to hear without providing immediate intellectual challenges for them.

Of course the resurrection is the central theology of Chrisianity, but the fact is, he didn't need to downplay the virgin birth. Why plant seeds of doubt?



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[evangelist6589]

Andy Stanley, founder of North Point Ministries, a network of six congregations across the Atlanta metropolitan area attended by 30,000 worshippers a week, suggested he doesn’t have a problem with people who doubt the Virgin Birth. In a message on December 3rd he said that one of the challenging things about Christmas is the “unbelievable” nature of stories in the Bible describing Jesus’ miraculous conception.

Stanley said he is less concerned about the Virgin Birth than with the Resurrection. “If somebody can predict their own death and their own resurrection, I’m not all that concerned about how they got into the world, because the whole resurrection thing is so amazing,” he said. “Christianity doesn’t hinge on the truth or even the stories around the birth of Jesus,” Stanley said. “It really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus.”

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., took exception to Stanley’s view in a Dec. 16 podcast describing the Bible stories about Christ’s incarnation as “the central truth claim of Christmas.”

“Just in recent days, one Christian leader was quoted as saying that if Jesus predicted his death and then was raised from the dead, it doesn’t matter how he came into the world,” Mohler said. “But the Bible insists it really does matter and the answer given from Scripture very clear in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of Luke is that Jesus was born to a virgin.”

Mohler said attacks on the Virgin Birth became popular in the aftermath of the Enlightenment in the form of attempts “to harmonize the anti-supernaturalism of the modern mind with the church’s historic teaching about Christ.”

“The great question of liberal theology has been to invent a Jesus who was stripped of all supernatural power, deity, status and authority,” Mohler said. “And in order to do that they have to begin by denying what the Bible so clearly teaches in terms of the Virgin Birth.”

https://baptistnews.com/article/virgin-birth-debate-interrupts-regular-war-on-christmas-program/

What say you? Is Andy Stanley weakening the Virgin Birth? Is he denying it?

Andy Stanley is a problematic teacher and I pay no attention to him. Charles should be ashamed his son is such a mess.

 

[evangelist6589]

I went to listen to the message before commenting, and I don't have a problem with what he said.

He is simply trying to put the focus in the right place. The virgin birth of Jesus is true whether or not anyone believes it, but it is NOT essential to faith and it is probably NOT the way to introduce people to Jesus. Once you understand the reality of the resurrection, you can go back and hear the story of the virgin birth (omitted by both Mark and John's Gospel), and have confidence in it.

This seems to me to be nit-picking at Andy Stanley that is possibly motivated by other things.

If you go after Andy Stanley for this, you must go criticize Mark and John for their "ho-humming" (or worse) of the virgin birth of Christ to be consistent.

I wonder who comprehends concepts better you or In The Light? Stanley may have weakened the virgin birth or he may not have.

 

[Aaron]

The Virgin Birth was a sign. Christ's sinlessness has nothing to do with the manner in which his body was prepared. His sinlessness and incorruptibility is on the basis of His divinity.

The Virgin Birth is a critical doctrine, no doubt. Just like the six day creation account. But don't make Christ's Person dependent upon it.

 

[TCassidy]

If you go back at look carefully at the Isaiah passage, it refers to a "young woman" being with child, not necessarily a sexually-inexperienced one.

This one is easy. How does the New Testament translate the word? The NT says the word is properly translated παρθενος. Virgin. QED

 

[InTheLight]

The Virgin Birth was a sign. Christ's sinlessness has nothing to do with the manner in which his body was prepared. His sinlessness and incorruptibility is on the basis of His divinity.

If Christ was not fully God in the womb, when would he have attained divinity? Twelve years old? Thirty?



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[McCree79]

If Christ was not fully God in the womb, when would he have attained divinity? Twelve years old? Thirty?



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

Aaron isn't claiming the Son was not always divine. He is saying that the "virgin birth" does not make him divine. It is more of proof for mankind. It is evidence of divinity, not a cause of divinty. His view seems to be that of Millard Erickson. God could have entered into creation through a non vrigin if he chose to do so. But he chose a virgin as a sign...as proof that He is of the godhead.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

Aaron isn't claiming the Son was not always divine. He is saying that the "virgin birth" does not make him divine. It is more of proof for mankind. It is evidence of divinity, not a cause of divinty.

I would argue that he was born of a virgin because of his divinity.

 

[McCree79]

I would argue that he was born of a virgin because of his divinity.

What effect would that have on Him? Sex isn't a sin if contained inside the instiutuion of marriage. Would the argument be that sex would make her unclean? Would it be a sin for God incarnate to come into a married woman? Or is Orginal sin passed through man through the sex act?

I find this topic interesting. But based on the prohecy of Isaiah, which I believe saw its only fullfillment in Christ(not in Isaiah's family at all), the virgin birth is a must defend doctrine.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk