Is Andy Stanley Ho-Humming the Virgin Birth?

[TCassidy]

His being born of a virgin indicates he had no earthly father and thus was not cursed with the sin nature passed through the federal headship of Adam.

 

[McCree79]

His being born of a virgin indicates he had no earthly father and thus was not cursed with the sin nature passed through the federal headship of Adam.

Absolutely indicates no earthly father. If she was married and sexually active, no one would believe Joseph was not the father. The curse of sin: So it is the man in your view that transmits the curse? The woman is a sinner as well, why not both. The seminal(natural) headship view is that the man passes it on, however you indicated you hold to the "federal" view. So would it be that having no human father would disconnect him from the headship of Adam? Thus allowing him to be the "2nd Adam", a new federal head. Or would you say that since he was conceived by the Holy Spirit coming on Mary, that the santificating(i may have made this word up...hahaha) power would prevent the curse from being passed on to the human nature of the God-man?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

The woman is a sinner as well, why not both.

Eve was deceived. Adam knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway.

So would it be that having no human father would disconnect him from the headship of Adam? Thus allowing him to be the "2nd Adam", a new federal head.

Yes. Exactly.

 

[Baptist Believer]

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?

You've missed the point. God was not required to do things a certain way - God is not bound by any higher authority or our theology.

Your error is one of arrogance. You are taking your theology and trying to impose it on God to claim what He can or cannot do.

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

Ah, throwing out the "L"-word instead of actually reading the text like I suggested. Crack open your Bible and read the passage. The virgin birth of Isaiah 7 is meant to be a sign to King Ahaz that God was with Judah (see Isaiah 7:10-17). The child that is born, named Immanuel (v.14), will not be very old before the enemies of Judah as destroyed.

This is the FIRST meaning of the passage. If it is "liberal" to actually read the Bible and believe it, then we all need to be liberal! How could the virgin birth of Jesus 700 YEARS later be a sign to Ahaz who was facing a military threat?

I don't know what you mean by "traditionally" and "majority interpretation" of the passage, unless you think the King James mistranslation of the text is somehow authoritative. If so, then the text must claim that there were TWO virgin births - one in the days of Isaiah and one in Bethlehem to Mary.

For what it's worth, while the LXX renders the Hebrew word for "young woman" with a word for a woman who is sexually inexperienced, the Hebrew word "almah" which relates to youth.

Foreshadowing? Is that all? Surely you mean prophecy.

I meant both actually. I avoided using the word prophecy in that context because the common meaning of prophecy among many is that it is always about the future. The problem I was discussing with you involved that same error.

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

So you have been carefully following Andy Stanley's sermons, raised this question all by yourself and then found an article to quote to support your view? I sincerely doubt 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.

You are being dishonest here. No one has said the virgin birth of Jesus is unimportant. Don't you dare try to paint me as someone who is denying anything.

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.

It is not so much about importance in terms of knowledge, but in terms of strategic evangelism and discipleship, it is a lower priority than the resurrection.

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?

I didn't think ANY seeds of doubt were planted. He simply acknowledged that some may struggle with the idea.

Acknowledgement of how difficult it is for the modern (and ancient) mind to understand the ways of God is hardly planting seeds of doubt.

 

[Baptist Believer]

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

Matthew is probably quoting the LXX, not the Hebrew.

But if we try to interpret Isaiah 7 solely by the way Matthew takes the passage, then there was a virgin birth (of Immanual) first, then Jesus 700 years later.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Eve was deceived. Adam knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway.

Eve sinned.

Sin is part of the human condition, male and female.

The fullest expression of your view is found in Roman Catholicism and leads to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

 

[McCree79]

The fullest expression of your view is found in Roman Catholicism and leads to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Eve did sin, you are correct. But to be fair to TCassidy, his view is much different than the Catholic view. His view is that without a human father, he is severed from the headship of Adam as the federal representative who brought Orginal sin on us all as our representative. Jesus is than able to establish a new federal headship. He is our new, sinless representative. Hence the 2nd Adam. TCassidy is not attempting to convey Mary was sinless. I gave him an opportunity to go there and he didn't. He is just conveying that Adam is one who orginal sin is transmitted though.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

This is the FIRST meaning of the passage. If it is "liberal" to actually read the Bible and believe it, then we all need to be liberal! How could the virgin birth of Jesus 700 YEARS later be a sign to Ahaz who was facing a military threat?

Who would "alma" apply to for inital fullfillment. Two common views is Ahaz's son or Isaiah's son. But Hezekiah was already born and the definition of "alma" would no longer apply to Isaiah's wife. Motyer's and Young's commentary on Isaiah support that "alma" was never used, even outside of the OT, to refer to a married woman. Is the first "Immanuel" known to us? I only see one fullfillment of the prophecy and that is Jesus.

I do agree "alma" doesn't have to mean virgin, but it usually would. I also dont get worked up over the RSV translation of "alma".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

If No Virgin Birth, Jesus had Orignal Sin, was a liar/deceiver, we are still lost in our sins!
MUST keep Virgin Birth, or else God and Jesus lied to us, all are still lost!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

His humanity would have had the taint of Original Sin without VB though! Wouldhave been dosqualiied as Messih...

 

[Baptist Believer]

Who would "alma" apply to for inital fullfillment. Two common views is Ahaz's son or Isaiah's son. But Hezekiah was already born and the definition of "alma" would no longer apply to Isaiah's wife. Motyer's and Young's commentary on Isaiah support that "alma" was never used, even outside of the OT, to refer to a married woman. Is the first "Immanuel" known to us? I only see one fullfillment of the prophecy and that is Jesus.

I do agree "alma" doesn't have to mean virgin, but it usually would. I also dont get worked up over the RSV translation of "alma".

All of this does not actually explain how the virgin birth of Jesus would be a sign to Ahaz. That's the plain meaning of the passage.

 

[McCree79]

If No Virgin Birth, Jesus had Orignal Sin, was a liar/deceiver, we are still lost in our sins!
MUST keep Virgin Birth, or else God and Jesus lied to us, all are still lost!

Does it have to be of virigin. Say a woman was previously married, but husband died. Could the Holy Spirit come upon and form God in the flesh? How does her being a virgin prevent orginal sin? In the federal and natural headship views, the lack of a human father would sufficiently prevent the curse of orginal sin.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

You've missed the point. God was not required to do things a certain way - God is not bound by any higher authority or our theology.


Your error is one of arrogance. You are taking your theology and trying to impose it on God to claim what He can or cannot do.

You didn't address my point. If Jesus was not God in the womb then he would need to acquire his divinity at some point in his life. (I'm not saying this couldn't have happened) But once you go down this road you run into other, thorny questions about the Trinity.

I don't know what you mean by "traditionally" and "majority interpretation" of the passage, unless you think the King James mistranslation of the text is somehow authoritative. If so, then the text must claim that there were TWO virgin births - one in the days of Isaiah and one in Bethlehem to Mary.

I mean that very few translations have "young woman" here. Most have "virgin".

So you have been carefully following Andy Stanley's sermons, raised this question all by yourself and then found an article to quote to support your view? I sincerely doubt it.

Nope. I barely know Stanley, just what I read here and in newsfeeds.

You are being dishonest here. No one has said the virgin birth of Jesus is unimportant. Don't you dare try to paint me as someone who is denying anything.

You have not denied it; you have said it is unimportant.

Here's what you've said in this thread so far:

The virgin birth of Jesus [..] is NOT essential to faith and it is probably NOT the way to introduce people to Jesus.

If the virgin birth is as important as the resurrection, then both Mark and John would have included it.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Baptist Believer]

If No Virgin Birth, Jesus had Orignal Sin, was a liar/deceiver, we are still lost in our sins!
MUST keep Virgin Birth, or else God and Jesus lied to us, all are still lost!

Some of us has never seen the doctrine of original sin in the scripture, and therefore do not hold to it.

Whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin (He was) has NO bearing on whether or not Jesus was a "liar/deceiver" (He's not).

 

[Yeshua1]

Matthew is probably quoting the LXX, not the Hebrew.

But if we try to interpret Isaiah 7 solely by the way Matthew takes the passage, then there was a virgin birth (of Immanual) first, then Jesus 700 years later.

No, as there was an immedite fulfillment of that time, young woman, and the Holy Spirit allowed Matthhew to tie it also to virgin in ultimate fulfillment!
Jesus HAD to come Virgin Born to have Godincarnated as Jesuso he indeed had "tied/bound" HImself to doin it that specific way!

 

[Yeshua1]

Does it have to be of virigin. Say a woman was previously married, but husband died. Could the Holy Spirit come upon and form God in the flesh? How does her being a virgin prevent orginal sin? In the federal and natural headship views, the lack of a human father would sufficiently prevent the curse of orginal sin.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Jesus would inherit sinful mature though...

 

[Yeshua1]

Some of us has never seen the doctrine of original sin in the scripture, and therefore do not hold to it.

Whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin (He was) has NO bearing on whether or not Jesus was a "liar/deceiver" (He's not).

H ewould have been if was born in a natural fashion though!

 

[McCree79]

All of this does not actually explain how the virgin birth of Jesus would be a sign to Ahaz. That's the plain meaning of the passage.

But what sign did Ahaz receive? We know of no qualifing birth by an "alma". Was the prohecy false in Ahaz's day or just unknown? If it was Hezekiah, then Isaiah is predicting somthing that had already happened, which is no prediction at all. And Isaiah would not be able to refer to his wife as "alma".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

All of this does not actually explain how the virgin birth of Jesus would be a sign to Ahaz. That's the plain meaning of the passage.

Was the birth of the child the sign or was the defeat of Syria and Israel of verse 17?

 

[Yeshua1]

But what sign did Ahaz receive? We know of no qualifing birth by an "alma". Was the prohecy false in Ahaz's day or just unknown? If it was Hezekiah, then Isaiah is predicting somthing that had already happened, which is no prediction at all. And Isaiah would not be able to refer to his wife as "alma".

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

There was an mediate fulfillment of the young woman in his time, but also greater fulfillment of Virgin born Messiah.