“Before you or anyone else hyperventilates ...”
It seems to me that you are the one doing the hyperventilating. Why did you drag “believer’s baptism” into this?
If you can’t stick to the point at issue, there is no discussion. The exercise simply turns into something akin to a cable “news” program of two talking heads exchanging ranting monologues.
“Why did you drag “believer’s baptism” into this?”
Because it IS relevant.
Theologians and creeds can’t even figure out the obvious - that Believer’s Baptism is clearly taught in scripture. If theologians can’t even get THAT right, then just how useful are their speculations on the nature of man and deity in Christ to salvation?
Why should we worry about the creeds of a church that taught the existence of priests instead of the universal priesthood of all believers, and infant baptism versus believer’s baptism? Just how essentials are creeds developed by man for salvation?
The point Andy Stanley seems to have been making was simply that knowledge of and acceptance of the Virgin Birth is not a prerequisite for salvation. There isn’t anything radical about that, provided he ALSO teaches that believers need to accept the revealed truth of the Virgin Birth - once they know it.
I’m not the one who brought up the Athanasian Creed as essential teaching.