Featured Is Andy Stanley Ho-Humming the Virgin Birth?

Not in the understanding of federal or natural headship. The key is no human father. A woman who has had sex(inside of marriage) is no more sinful than then virgin.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

What woman?

The two tradtional views dont work. Hezekiah was already born and Isaiah's wife was not an "alma".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I don't need to address your point because you missed my point and started down a road where you demand that I address heresy.

My point has been that God was not required to have a virgin birth to redeem the world. God could have done it other ways, since God is not bound by any higher authority or power - nor our imaginations.

It is a reaction to claims I hear when people say that God "has" to do things a certain way or God "cannot" do something. It is human arrogance dressed up in religious robes.

The King James error has been very influential. That doesn't change the original language or the meaning of the text.

Absolutely false.

You quoted me in this way:

Let's look at what I said, not what you claim I said.

(1) I did not say it was "unimportant," I said it is "NOT essential to faith" and "probably NOT the way to introduce people to Jesus." Essential to faith <> unimportant
(2) I did not say it was "unimportant," I said that if it was "as important as the resurrection," then Mark and John would have included it in their Gospels.

What is widely considered to be the earliest Gospel, Mark, did not consider the virgin birth as essential to understanding the nature of Jesus as Messiah, God Incarnate, and risen Lord. Matthew, wanting to tie Jesus to the history of Israel so as to help his people understand him, pulled in the story of the virgin birth and tied it to the incident recording in Isaiah, pulling out the foreshadowing of "God With Us" (aka Immanuel) and tying it to Mary. The fact the "young woman" of Isaiah 7 had sexual relations and conceived a child, does nothing to undermine that fact that Mary was a virgin (sexually inexperienced). That was never the point. Luke, seeking to write an orderly account of the life and teachings of Jesus, seems to have been able to interview Mary or her family and brings out elements of the story found nowhere else. The fact of her virginity is brought out because it is notable. John, writing against Gnosticism, decided NOT to write of the virgin birth for some reason. He knew his audience better than I do, but I think it would be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that the "flesh" is not necessarily opposed to the Spirit. But in any case, John - who almost certainly knew of the fact of the virgin birth, did not report on it.

Whatever, you make of this, it cannot be easily dismissed. If you demand (like some others here recently at BaptistBoard) that belief in the Virgin Birth is essential for salvation, then Mark and John should be condemned for presenting an incomplete presentation of the gospel.

 

No. A person being born of a man and woman does not automatically make them a liar/deceiver. Or was John the Baptist a liar/deceiver?

 

That a young woman (we don't necessarily know who this is) would conceive and give birth (9 months) and would know enough to "reject evil and choose what is right" (see Isaiah 7:16) which would indicate a child reaching a moral awakening. I would say that it is a prophecy of God's deliverance within about 10 years or so.

Just because we don't have all the details doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Not false at all! Fulfilled in Ahaz's day.

 

Defeat of Syria and Israel.

 

Regarding the OP. Andy Stanley is developing a bad habit of downplaying certain Christian beliefs to get people in the door. He is trying to remove obstacles for the sinner to make church less offensive. This will result in a long term problem. If the rest of the Bible is too risky to defend, then why should anyone believe the resurrection? We dont get to pick which parts of the Bible we get to believe and defend. Andy is on a dangerous path. When a church quits preaching the Scripture as authoritative, that church will become filled with people on outside of the atonement of Christ. The lost will stay lost.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I agree. Then why would a typological Christ need to be born in Ahaz's day? How would Ahaz regonize this Immanuel? I can think of no other prohecy from God that came to pass and we don't know how it was fullfilled.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The wife of the Prophet, as sign to the King.

 

The wife of the prohet was not an "alma". It has never been used to refer to a married woman. And this one has already had a previous child. Nor did she call the prophet's second son Immanuel. The term "alma" can not refer to her.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

He was a sinner from birth.

 

It could be in the sense of theyoung woman, as both that and virgin are permitted in theHebrew, but the Spirit qualified it to be really referring to Virgin for Mary, as Mother of Messiah!

 

I agree with the last half of the statement. But the Hebrew does not allow "alma" to ever refer to a married woman who has given birth to a previous child. That woman would not be a "alma". My view is that before this child is born, Syria and Israel would fall. That was the sign to Ahaz. The child Immanuel did not see fullfillment until the virgin birth of Jesus. The sign of the Israel and Syria's defeat would also serve as proof that the Messiah was coming from a "alma". Which happened to be the virgin Mary. Who fits the term perfectly.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

That view would be acceptable also, and think that we both agree that the Virgin Birth has to be held with , as an essential of the Faith!

 

if the virgin birth is not important, than why is it in the word of God? We should never minimize any portion of the word of God.

Also, someone claims Is 7:14 was only to Ahaz:

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

this is from the KJV, in the KJV you and ye are plural, and thee and thou are singular. Because Ahaz would not ask for a sing, God then proclaimed he would give a sign to the house of David, he would give YOU PLURAL a sign. the sign is to the house of Israel, as a whole. Not to mention that Matthew quotes it as a prophecy of Christ.

This thread is starting to smell of liberalism and modernism.

 

The prophecy was to both Ahaz and Israel of that time, andalso to full/greater fulfillment with Mary and Jesus. To deny the Vurgin Birth, one denies Original Sin, and also would have Jesus being sinless due to him being perfect in keeping the Law, which He was, and not due to His sinless mature.

 

Too late to fix this in my original post, but this should read:

NOT essential to faith <> not important.

I hope the context carried the meaning previously.

 

So the belief in the Vurgin Birth not essential to hold with?

 

Says who?

 

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: