Is Andy Stanley Ho-Humming the Virgin Birth?

[Baptist Believer]

Remember, when Andy said he wanted to take the focus off the scriptures and put that focus on His resurrection...

Yes, I remember that attack on him.

...ppl on here rushed to his defense.

Not really his defense, but defense of truth, because it was being twisted.

I was one of those people.

Andy appears to be beyond approach to some on here.

Not at all. I don't pay attention to his ministry, but perhaps I should since the religious establishment is attacking him so fiercely.

Sad. Really sad.

It is sad.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

None of those people downplayed the virgin birth. I had a conversation the other day where it was also not part of the discussion. not mentioning it is not downplaying it. What Andy did is.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It has occurred to me that it is likely that the reason people are having such a hard time comprehending that Andy Stanley might not actually be criticizing or "downplaying" the virgin birth is that they see the opinion of Al Mohler as authoritative and that they have trusted him to provide a balanced and accurate summary of Stanley's message. The post immediately following this one will provide a transcript of the relevant portions of the sermon for your reference.

Let me address Mohler's points head on:

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 is speaking to people who may be quite skeptical of the story of the virgin birth because they don't understand that it is part of a much larger story of seemingly impossible and unbelievable promises that God has fulfilled throughout history. He is simply giving people space to hear the story for themselves instead of simply demanding that they believe it uncritically.

For someone to think that Stanley is characterizing the virgin birth of Jesus as truly unbelievable reveals that either they did not actually listen to the sermon past the first three minutes or so, or else they are deliberately mischaracterizing it.

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.”

That seems to be an obvious statement in light of the fact that two of the four Gospels don't mention it, Paul doesn't mention it, no sermons in the New Testament reference it, nor any New Testament writers other than Matthew and Luke. Clearly, it is not the "hinge" of the Christian faith.

Certainly, it is a hinge for some people's theology, but that is a reflection of their theology, not the New Testament.

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.”

Note how Mohler has shifted the question here:

Stanley claimed that "Christianity does not hinge on ... the stories around the birth of Jesus", and Mohler says that the Bible stories about Christ's incarnation are "the central truth claim of Christmas." Stanley is talking about Christianity and Mohler is talking about Christmas as it they are the same.

“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 subtly misquotes Stanley and pulls his words out of context. Stanley actually said:

"...if somebody can predict their own death and then their own resurrection, I’m not all that concerned about how they got into the world, because the whole resurrection thing is so amazing, and in fact, you should know this, that Christianity doesn’t hinge on the truth or even the stories of the birth of Jesus."​

Mohler claims that Stanley said, "it doesn't matter how he came into the world," when Stanley actually said, he was not all that concerned about it in light of the resurrection. If one can accept the resurrection of Jesus, then the virgin birth is easy to accept.

Mohler continues his thought to emphasize that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born to a virgin, as stated in Matthew and Luke, as if Stanley somehow disbelieves it or does not care if his audience believes it. If Mohler had listened to the whole sermon, he would know that the point of the sermon was to put the virgin birth in the context of God fulfilling His astounding promises throughout history, all the way to a virgin named Mary.

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.”

Mohler then adds accurate commentary of popular and academic attacks on the virgin birth of Christ in the context of Stanley's misquoted and out-of-context comments in order to associate him with liberalism.

 

[Baptist Believer]

“Who Needs Christmas: The World Did” by Andy Stanley
December 3, 2016
(transcript of audio version of sermon 0:00-3:38)

“Hey one of the challenging things about the Christmas season, and one of the things about the Christmas story is in fact the Christmas story, the Christmas story as it relates to the birth of Jesus. Because there’s so much miraculous, there’s so much amazing, there’s so much that’s really unbelievable about it. And a lot of people just don’t believe it, and I understand that. And maybe the thought is that maybe they had to come up with some myth about the birth of Jesus to give him street-cred later on, maybe that’s where that came from.

It’s interesting because Matthew gives us a version of the birth of Christ, Luke does, but Mark and John, they don’t even mention it. And a lot is made of that.

So before we jump in, I want to say one thing about that whole thing. You know you’ve heard me say some version of thing about a million times, so this will be old if you’ve been around for a while, but see if somebody can predict their own death and then their own resurrection, I’m not all that concerned about how they got into the world, because the whole resurrection thing is so amazing, and in fact, you should know this, that Christianity doesn’t hinge on the truth or even the stories of the birth of Jesus. It really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. And yet, as unbelievable as the birth narratives are, as unbelievable as the accounts are in Matthew and Luke, when you get the back story, when you get the whole story, the unbelievable story actually becomes a remarkable story, because the story of Christmas doesn’t begin with a couple who’s trying to figure out how in the world they got pregnant. The Christmas story actually begins with a couple who are worried that they are never going to get pregnant. It doesn’t begin with a couple who is trying to figure out where we are going to have this baby, it begins with a couple that’s pretty confident they are never going to have a baby.

The back story of Christmas is what makes this Christmas story so incredibly remarkable. And it doesn’t begin with angels announcing in Matthew or Luke, it actually begins with God making a promise in the Book of Genesis. And it’s not just any promise, an unbelievable, really incoherent - that is when the promise was made the person who received the promise, this could not have made any sense whatsoever in his cultural context - an impossible, an unbelievable, incoherent, impossible promise. And as we look at this promise, it was absolutely impossible for it to come true. And yet this promise set up the events around Christmas. And in fact this promise, and the remarkable story around this promise, is really what makes Christmas so believable. And the story around the birth of Jesus so believable.

The promise was made about 2,000 years before Jesus was born. In fact, about the year 2090 [B.C.] is the best way we can estimate this, and it’s found in the book of Genesis. But for just a minute, especially if you’re new to church, or you’ve been out for a while, or you’re just not so sure about the Bible, don’t think the Bible... - I want you to think about this document the Jews entitled ‘Genesis’ that’s over 3,000 years old, some say it’s way lot older than 3,000 years old, but this document called Genesis that tells us how the Jewish nation began, so it’s very, very important to the Jewish people. So they copied it meticulously and they handed it down through the years, and eventually became part of a lot of Jewish literature, and eventually became part of what we would call the Jewish scriptures. And eventually the Jewish scriptures were added to the documents that became part of the New Testament, and put all of that together and lo and behold, we have a Bible. But the Bible didn’t give us Genesis, Genesis ultimately became part of the Bible.

An in this document - this ancient, ancient, ancient document that we know as Genesis - we find this extraordinary, unbelievable, literally incoherent promise, that God made to a man names Abram, that eventually we know as Abraham. So here’s how Christmas began…”​

[Stanley gives a very good summary of Jewish history through the Old Testament and the interbiblical period of God keeping His extraordinary promises, leading up to the angel Gabriel appearing to a virgin named Mary.]

Picking up at 25:45

“And the thing that makes the Christmas story so believable, is the fact that the entire story is so remarkable. No one would have made this up. No one could make this up. This stretched out over so many years that the thread was not always evident and people lost track and and people lost sight - but during that entire period of time, God was behind the scenes working - getting the world ready for the thing that He ultimately decided to do...”​

 

[JonC]

“Who Needs Christmas: The World Did” by Andy Stanley
December 3, 2016
(transcript of audio version of sermon 0:00-3:38)

“Hey one of the challenging things about the Christmas season, and one of the things about the Christmas story is in fact the Christmas story, the Christmas story as it relates to the birth of Jesus. Because there’s so much miraculous, there’s so much amazing, there’s so much that’s really unbelievable about it. And a lot of people just don’t believe it, and I understand that. And maybe the thought is that maybe they had to come up with some myth about the birth of Jesus to give him street-cred later on, maybe that’s where that came from.

It’s interesting because Matthew gives us a version of the birth of Christ, Luke does, but Mark and John, they don’t even mention it. And a lot is made of that.

So before we jump in, I want to say one thing about that whole thing. You know you’ve heard me say some version of thing about a million times, so this will be old if you’ve been around for a while, but see if somebody can predict their own death and then their own resurrection, I’m not all that concerned about how they got into the world, because the whole resurrection thing is so amazing, and in fact, you should know this, that Christianity doesn’t hinge on the truth or even the stories of the birth of Jesus. It really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. And yet, as unbelievable as the birth narratives are, as unbelievable as the accounts are in Matthew and Luke, when you get the back story, when you get the whole story, the unbelievable story actually becomes a remarkable story, because the story of Christmas doesn’t begin with a couple who’s trying to figure out how in the world they got pregnant. The Christmas story actually begins with a couple who are worried that they are never going to get pregnant. It doesn’t begin with a couple who is trying to figure out where we are going to have this baby, it begins with a couple that’s pretty confident they are never going to have a baby.

The back story of Christmas is what makes this Christmas story so incredibly remarkable. And it doesn’t begin with angels announcing in Matthew or Luke, it actually begins with God making a promise in the Book of Genesis. And it’s not just any promise, an unbelievable, really incoherent - that is when the promise was made the person who received the promise, this could not have made any sense whatsoever in his cultural context - an impossible, an unbelievable, incoherent, impossible promise. And as we look at this promise, it was absolutely impossible for it to come true. And yet this promise set up the events around Christmas. And in fact this promise, and the remarkable story around this promise, is really what makes Christmas so believable. And the story around the birth of Jesus so believable.

The promise was made about 2,000 years before Jesus was born. In fact, about the year 2090 [B.C.] is the best way we can estimate this, and it’s found in the book of Genesis. But for just a minute, especially if you’re new to church, or you’ve been out for a while, or you’re just not so sure about the Bible, don’t think the Bible... - I want you to think about this document the Jews entitled ‘Genesis’ that’s over 3,000 years old, some say it’s way lot older than 3,000 years old, but this document called Genesis that tells us how the Jewish nation began, so it’s very, very important to the Jewish people. So they copied it meticulously and they handed it down through the years, and eventually became part of a lot of Jewish literature, and eventually became part of what we would call the Jewish scriptures. And eventually the Jewish scriptures were added to the documents that became part of the New Testament, and put all of that together and lo and behold, we have a Bible. But the Bible didn’t give us Genesis, Genesis ultimately became part of the Bible.

An in this document - this ancient, ancient, ancient document that we know as Genesis - we find this extraordinary, unbelievable, literally incoherent promise, that God made to a man names Abram, that eventually we know as Abraham. So here’s how Christmas began…”​

[Stanley gives a very good summary of Jewish history through the Old Testament and the interbiblical period of God keeping His extraordinary promises, leading up to the angel Gabriel appearing to a virgin named Mary.]

Picking up at 25:45

“And the thing that makes the Christmas story so believable, is the fact that the entire story is so remarkable. No one would have made this up. No one could make this up. This stretched out over so many years that the thread was not always evident and people lost track and and people lost sight - but during that entire period of time, God was behind the scenes working - getting the world ready for the thing that He ultimately decided to do...”​

The problem with some is that Stanley simply does not fit into their camp. We saw this with Adrian Rogers last year (I don't remember if it was this board or another). I cannot remember the quote, but a few people took great offense at what was said by Rogers (although they seemed to accept it when it was said by John Gill). What had happened was that these people were magnifying and twisting words to suit their dislike for the pastor's theology. I think some do the same with Stanley.

But another problem is that Stanley seems sometimes to word things so as to make them controversial. I do not think that anyone on this board truly believes that when you witness to someone you have to make sure that they understand and believe the fact of Jesus' virgin birth in order that they might be saved. But I also don't think that anyone here denies that one must believe in the Resurrection in order to be saved. As we recall Stanley's comments (and the reason for his comments) about the gospel of Christ Himself transcending the narrative of the gospel accounts in reaching the lost, I think that it may put his comments here in perspective.

I do not follow Stanley's ministry. I disagree with the idea that the pulpit (the pastor delivering sermons with the church as his audience) has as it's primary focus evangelism...except in the context that it is preparing and equipping the saints. I disagree with Stanley's statements - not because of what he is saying (here and with the last issue) but because he minimizes one doctrine to elevate another.

 

[Revmitchell]

I disagree with Stanley's statements - not because of what he is saying (here and with the last issue) but because he minimizes one doctrine to elevate another.

Boom, all that needs to be said.

 

[Yeshua1]

Says who?

Th Bible dos, as every persn was onceived in sin, born and inherited natue of Adam, so Virgin Birth requiredt o have Jesus allowed to bypass that and have sinless humanity!
All others save him are sinnersa by birt and choice!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

It would be for Jesus IF he was a sinner, as He clamed never to had sinned, soif not Virgin Born, then not able to save Himelf even!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Th Bible dos, as every persn was onceived in sin, born and inherited natue of Adam, so Virgin Birth requiredt o have Jesus allowed to bypass that and have sinless humanity!
All others save him are sinnersa by birt and choice!

Except that Jesus was born of a woman. Women are persons. Women receive the nature of Adam. Mary was a sinner. Jesus was her son.

The doctrine of original sin being transmitted by physical means can easily take you to a place where you are advocating the Immaculate Conception of Mary - which is just shifting the issue forward a generation and putting Mary in a position she should not be in.

There are concepts such as "federal headship" that allow for the doctrine of original sin without taking one logically to the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but that is simply a means to uphold the doctrine of original sin as formulated by Augustine (although possibly hinted at by Irenaeus).

Many of us simply don't see the doctrine of original sin in the scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

It has occurred to me that it is likely that the reason people are having such a hard time comprehending that Andy Stanley might not actually be criticizing or "downplaying" the virgin birth is that they see the opinion of Al Mohler as authoritative and that they have trusted him to provide a balanced and accurate summary of Stanley's message. The post immediately following this one will provide a transcript of the relevant portions of the sermon for your reference.

Let me address Mohler's points head on:



Stanley is speaking to people who may be quite skeptical of the story of the virgin birth because they don't understand that it is part of a much larger story of seemingly impossible and unbelievable promises that God has fulfilled throughout history. He is simply giving people space to hear the story for themselves instead of simply demanding that they believe it uncritically.

For someone to think that Stanley is characterizing the virgin birth of Jesus as truly unbelievable reveals that either they did not actually listen to the sermon past the first three minutes or so, or else they are deliberately mischaracterizing it.


That seems to be an obvious statement in light of the fact that two of the four Gospels don't mention it, Paul doesn't mention it, no sermons in the New Testament reference it, nor any New Testament writers other than Matthew and Luke. Clearly, it is not the "hinge" of the Christian faith.

Certainly, it is a hinge for some people's theology, but that is a reflection of their theology, not the New Testament.


Note how Mohler has shifted the question here:

Stanley claimed that "Christianity does not hinge on ... the stories around the birth of Jesus", and Mohler says that the Bible stories about Christ's incarnation are "the central truth claim of Christmas." Stanley is talking about Christianity and Mohler is talking about Christmas as it they are the same.



Mohler subtly misquotes Stanley and pulls his words out of context. Stanley actually said:

"...if somebody can predict their own death and then their own resurrection, I’m not all that concerned about how they got into the world, because the whole resurrection thing is so amazing, and in fact, you should know this, that Christianity doesn’t hinge on the truth or even the stories of the birth of Jesus."​

Mohler claims that Stanley said, "it doesn't matter how he came into the world," when Stanley actually said, he was not all that concerned about it in light of the resurrection. If one can accept the resurrection of Jesus, then the virgin birth is easy to accept.

Mohler continues his thought to emphasize that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born to a virgin, as stated in Matthew and Luke, as if Stanley somehow disbelieves it or does not care if his audience believes it. If Mohler had listened to the whole sermon, he would know that the point of the sermon was to put the virgin birth in the context of God fulfilling His astounding promises throughout history, all the way to a virgin named Mary.


Mohler then adds accurate commentary of popular and academic attacks on the virgin birth of Christ in the context of Stanley's misquoted and out-of-context comments in order to associate him with liberalism.

Andy Stanley was saying more than that, hewas allowing to have errors in the Bible, saying not required to he been Virgin Born, as was maybe a story only!
Like those wo say the Bible is true, but not all of the time, were no wise men, no Virgin Birth etc, as thy made that up to have Jesus be a King...

 

[Baptist Believer]

It would be for Jesus IF he was a sinner, as He clamed never to had sinned, soif not Virgin Born, then not able to save Himelf even!

This is so garbled I may be misunderstanding you, but I think you have asserted that Jesus claimed He had never sinned. Can you give me a reference for that?

The closest thing I can think of is John 8:46 where Jesus challenged his accusers to prove Him guilty of sin. It seems to be more of a rhetorical question because he continues his thought. That's not really a claim to be sinless.

There are places in Paul and Peter's writing that point out that Jesus was sinless, but that is not what you have claimed here.

Now don't take from my pointing this out that I think Jesus was a sinner, but I am weary of claims about scripture that are not true.

Regarding saving Himself, He did not seek to save Himself, but gave His life as a ransom for all. He entrusted Himself to the One who judges justly. (1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 Peter 2:23)

Beyond all of that, you have missed that point. A person corrupted by sin is not necessarily a "liar/deceiver" as you claim.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Andy Stanley was saying more than that, hewas allowing to have errors in the Bible, saying not required to he been Virgin Born, as was maybe a story only!

That is so utterly and completely false, I'm not even going to comment on it beyond that.

It is clear you haven't listened to the sermon and you are just making things up.

Like those wo say the Bible is true, but not all of the time, were no wise men, no Virgin Birth etc, as thy made that up to have Jesus be a King...

Nope. You are bearing false witness. You are now playing the role of liar/deceiver.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

IF you deny theVirgin Birth, that makes Jesus born a sinner!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

To deny the Virgin Birth allows for errors in Bible, not infallible witness from God to us, and more importantly, makes Jesus born a sinner!

 

[Aaron]

Th Bible dos, as every persn was onceived in sin, born and inherited natue of Adam, so Virgin Birth requiredt o have Jesus allowed to bypass that and have sinless humanity!
All others save him are sinnersa by birt and choice!

The Bible doesn't say anything of the sort. And sin isn't something that is passed. Sin is something that ISN'T passed, and that is life. It's not about what Adam could give, but what he couldn't, and neither could it come through Mary.

What? Sin is in the male genes? That is some of the most superstitious thinking there is.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is so garbled I may be misunderstanding you, but I think you have asserted that Jesus claimed He had never sinned. Can you give me a reference for that?

The closest thing I can think of is John 8:46 where Jesus challenged his accusers to prove Him guilty of sin. It seems to be more of a rhetorical question because he continues his thought. That's not really a claim to be sinless.

There are places in Paul and Peter's writing that point out that Jesus was sinless, but that is not what you have claimed here.

Now don't take from my pointing this out that I think Jesus was a sinner, but I am weary of claims about scripture that are not true.

Regarding saving Himself, He did not seek to save Himself, but gave His life as a ransom for all. He entrusted Himself to the One who judges justly. (1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 Peter 2:23)

Beyond all of that, you have missed that point. A person corrupted by sin is not necessarily a "liar/deceiver" as you claim.

John the Baptist called him Sinless, John/Peter/Paul, and Jesus said that he ALWAY did the will of His Father, and that included to never have sinned!

 

[Baptist Believer]

To deny the Virgin Birt allows for errorsin Bible, not infallible witness frm Godto us, and more imortant, maes Jesus born a sinner!

No one, from Andy Stanley to all of the persons who have posted here, have denied the virgin birth.

We may disagree about the relative importance of the doctrine, whether or not we should be understanding of people who - on their path to faith - should be required to deal with it before dealing with the resurrection, or how to adequately address the issue in our time, but NNE who has participated here or has been discussed (Andy Stanley) has denied the virgin birth.

 

[Yeshua1]

Except that Jesus was born of a woman. Women are persons. Women receive the nature of Adam. Mary was a sinner. Jesus was her son.

The doctrine of original sin being transmitted by physical means can easily take you to a place where you are advocating the Immaculate Conception of Mary - which is just shifting the issue forward a generation and putting Mary in a position she should not be in.

There are concepts such as "federal headship" that allow for the doctrine of original sin without taking one logically to the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but that is simply a means to uphold the doctrine of original sin as formulated by Augustine (although possibly hinted at by Irenaeus).

Many of us simply don't see the doctrine of original sin in the scriptures.

Jesus and Paul both advocated it as truth though!
So we are not born as sinners, but as blank slate, and can choose to have a sin nature or not?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Jesus and Paul both advocated it as truth though!
So we are not born as sinners, but as blank slate, and can choose to have a sin nature or not?

We are born compromised by sin. We become sinners when we engage in knowing sin, which happens early in our lives.

 

[Baptist Believer]

John the Baptist called him Sinless, John/Peter/Paul, and Jesus said that he ALWAY did the will of His Father, and that included to never have sinned!

Jesus did not say He was sinless. Let's just put that to rest.

He was sinless, but He did not explicitly claim that in any recorded sayings.