Featured Is Andy Stanley Ho-Humming the Virgin Birth?

Yes, I remember that attack on him.

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

I was one of those people.

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

It is sad.

 

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.

 

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.

 

“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...”​

 

Boom, all that needs to be said.

 

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!

 

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!

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.