Featured Is Andy Stanley Ho-Humming the Virgin Birth?

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!

 

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?

 

I think it goes well beyond weakening

 

Think more like denying it happened!

 

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.

 

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.

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 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.

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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