Featured Is Andy Stanley Ho-Humming the Virgin Birth?

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Why? Why did he know her not? In reality did he not have the right, to know her?
What did the angel tell him?
Would Jesus have been the Christ and sinless if Joseph had known her before she delivered her first born son?

Another good question might be; Are all people conceived in sin because of the first couple becoming dead in trespass and sin?

 

Eve ate and then gave to Adam and he ate. It was only after Adam ate their(both) eyes were open. Adam's rebellion caused Eve's eyes to be opened, showing his headship.

 

I agree. Adam represented us as a "federal head". That natural headship view is interesting, but I believe the federal view is stronger.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

How did the angel of the Lord, who appeared to Joseph in a dream understand Isa 7:14 and how did Joseph understand the angel of the Lord, who appeared to him in a dream relative to Mary remaining virgin unto birth?

Matt 1:20-25

Isn't the true fulfillment of Isa 7:14 virgin birth?

 

To Ahaz, it was not a "typological Christ," but a baby.

It would have been clear to him. That's one of the primary reasons some scholars believe the young woman may have been Isaiah's wife. There are reasons not to assume that, but the mother of the child would likely have been known to him. Even if it had not, the sign given to Ahaz indicates a certain timeframe for the enemies of Judah to be destroyed.

That's no reason to ignore the original context.

 

That's a different thing from being a "liar/deceiver." Does that make the Twelve "liars/deceivers" also?

 

I don't think anyone here (or Andy Stanley) has claimed the virgin birth is unimportant or minimized the word of God.

I don't know who is claiming that.

When people are more concerned about theological theories and less concerned about what the scripture actually says, you run into problems.

 

It is not essential to believe the virgin birth (or "the Vurgin Birth") to come to salvation. That's the point being made here. I think that once people enter into the life of God they will eventually come to understand that the virgin birth is not really hard to believe in light of the resurrection from the dead.

 

I don't know, I assume the angel understood the plain meaning of the scripture and possibly witnessed the events of Isaiah 7.

If you read carefully, the angel DID NOT quote Isaiah 7. That is Matthew's commentary on the angel's visit that begins in verse 22.

It is a true fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, but it is not the only fulfillment or even the primary one.

 

It is not a good idea to get into the habit of setting different fulfillments of the prophesies in some sort of importance. That is like saying one section of scripture is more important than others.

 

While the virgin birth is not a need for our salvation neither is it a good idea to down play it in any way. There are no lesser portions of prophesies and they are all equally important. Down paying these things give people room to dismiss them should they desire. We need to be equally accountable to all of scripture not just portions of it.

 

Good clarification. I meant "primary" in terms of "first." I was not assigning relative importance to the fulfillment.

 

Which is the premise of this thread. There was an accusation made about Andy Stanley that I think is completely unwarranted. At the same time, the scripture makes much less of it that many of our theologies.

For instance, I don't think there is a single reference to the virgin birth in any of the preaching recorded in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul doesn't explicitly mention it at all in his writings (although he probably knew about it because of his relationship to Luke). As pointed out earlier, Mark and John did not include it in their Gospels, nor is it mentioned in any other New Testament book beyond the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

So should we condemn all but Matthew and Luke for "downplaying" the virgin birth? Nope. It is not the most important thing that needs to be communicated to a lost and dying world.

The condemnation of Andy Stanley for acknowledging that people might have a hard time with it (and then moving to tell the broader story so as to put the virgin birth in context) is ridiculous.

Yes, I agree. We should also pay attention to how scripture is written and what it majored upon and what it not.

 

Yes. No one is disputing what you have said.

(1) I don't care if anyone agrees with me. We are talking about what the scripture says, what Andy Stanley said, and the accusation(s) made against him regarding a specific sermon. When talking about what is true, I don't wait to see if the truth is popular before I affirm it. I simply affirm it and let the chips fall where they may.

(2) Please pay attention to what I have written. You falsely claim that I have said that you are ridiculous. I have not. I have said the accusation is ridiculous.

I did answer your question: Here and here. You are trying to draw me into a discussion of heretical views of the Person of Christ. When I affirm the orthodox view, you are going to claim that you have proven your point, but you would not have. The issue is not whether the virgin birth is essential to your theory of atonement, but whether it is an essential part of the gospel presentation. That harkens back to the point that Andy Stanley made that the Gospel does not hinge on the truth surrounding the virgin birth of Jesus.

If the virgin birth is an essential part of the gospel presentation, then Paul completely failed. Although he wrote the majority of the New Testament, he did not make any explicit reference to the virgin birth, and I don't even see allusions to it in Paul's writing. (I'm certain he knew about it because Paul and Luke were ministry partners.)

That also means the John was a failure with his gospel.

That also means that Mark was a failure with his gospel (and Peter, by extension).

That also means that all of the preachers in the New Testament failed in their recorded sermons.

And apparently Andy Stanley stands with the likes of those failures.

 

Cute.

That's the whole point of this thread.

The critique of Andy Stanley that was aired on this thread is he did not demand that his hearers accept the virgin birth in order to hear the rest of the gospel story.

You wrote, "What say you? Is Andy Stanley weakening the Virgin Birth? Is he denying it?"

Weakening?
The answer is NO. He is not "weakening" it more than any most New Testament writers and the preachers of all recorded New Testament sermons.

Denying?
NO. Giving your hearers space to think about something is not denying it.

As a personal note, when I, as an agnostic, was making my way through the scriptures that eventually led to a renewed faith in Christ, I struggled over the virgin birth since a lot of atheistic writers expended an enormous amount of ink on the issue. THEY made it a fundamental issue of faith, where you could not even take the teaching of Jesus seriously, much less consider the resurrection, until you either affirmed or rejected the virgin birth.

It was an effective strategy, since it flies in the face of common sense and experience for an adult, unless you are already predisposed to accept the rest of the gospel. I finally set it aside as something I would have to come back to later, once I decided whether or not Jesus was a worthy teacher, since the circumstances of one's birth do not have any bearing on whether or not one is telling the truth. It was much later when I had accepted the resurrection as valid and the teachings of Jesus as truth, that I returned to the virgin birth knew that it was true and could see it in its proper importance.

So when Andy Stanley speaks to his audience and acknowledges that the virgin birth is a difficult thing to understand - and it is not the highest priority - it speaks directly to someone like me.

I get it.

Maybe you believe the virgin birth because it was taught to you as a child and you have managed to retain that belief - good for you. But those of us who had to reckon with it as an adult have a more difficult path. We come at things more skeptically and with life knowledge that must not be dismissed without wrestling through the issues.

 

Which is a lie.

He says he understands that it is hard to believe. That's not a quote, but that's the meat of it.

It seems clear you haven't actually listened to the sermon, yet you are willing to throw these false charges out, completely mischaracterizing what he is saying.

Do everyone a favor and actually listen to what he says.

Well it doesn't. Moreover, you are assuming that just because Christianity doesn't hinge on the virgin birth, Mr. Stanley (and anyone else) somehow doesn't think it is important. You need to move away from binary thinking. This is not an either/or issue.

Given that Paul, [John] Mark, John, and all the other writers of the New Testament - except Matthew and Luke - don't even mention it, indicates that Christianity does not hinge on the virgin birth.

Moreover, the Christian witness for the last 2000 years does not include a recitation of the doctrine of the virgin birth at every utterance. I have no conscious memory of a tract that includes it (although I'm sure there's one or two Jack Chick tracts out there that do), and there is no recorded sermon in the New Testament that mentions the virgin birth.

CLEARLY, that indicates that Christianity doesn't hinge on the virgin birth.

HOWEVER, YOUR theology might indeed hinge on the virgin birth, and that's fine. The virgin birth enters into my theology too. But don't confuse your theology with the hinge of the Christian message.

False premises lead to false conclusions.

Perhaps he's not preaching to those who are looking to condemn him, but to those who might be seeking God?

 

Remember, when Andy said he wanted to take the focus off the scriptures and put that focus on His resurrection, ppl on here rushed to his defense. Andy appears to be beyond approach to some on here. Sad. Really sad.