Featured False Teacher Andy Stanley

They are very much out of context. I have examined the sermon series they came from.

 

There is no way you have watched the series in question.

 

Too short. Link the series.

 

If Andy Stanley denied the resurrection, you would find some way of covering for him.

 

He appears to deny that scriptures though, as in picking and choosing what is to be accepted, and he does seem to want to get rid of the OT, or at least just preach/teach NT only!

 

He seems to be really "fuzzy" now though on how inspired the Bible really is, and seems to be wanting a NT only bible to use...

 

My pastor graduated from DTS, and he never got from there what AS is now giving out to his flock!

 

He is really confused and wrong, and would not want him as my Pastor!

 

You obviously have not listened to his full explanations in his series. You should actually listen to his teaching about the house of cards. It is easily misunderstood but powerful if properly applied. Stanley believes in a literal 6 day creation. He has made that clear many times.

 

He hasn't. His ministry audience has changed. He is mainly evangelizing post modern indoctrinated college students and recent graduates. He is still very fundamental in his beliefs. He has changed his mode to a baby steps approach. His approach is that you do not hAve to believe in Genesis creation to be saved. You don't have to believe the flood to be saved. You don't have to believe the Old Testament to be saved. Once you are saved, as you mature, you will grow to a point you believe all them. He is targeting an audience that believes there is no truth much less absolute truth. His approach is very effective but easily misunderstood.

 

No. The point is that he has not denied anything.

 

He preaches a baby step path. He is very fundamental in what he believes. He teaches that one need only accept the essential doctrines for salvation. Once one is saved, they will matuture and eventually get to the point they accept literal creation etc. He is effective in reaching his target audience of post modernists.

 

Does he believe in what he has said regarding the OT and the Law though?

 

He appears though to be undermining to them the surety of the scriptures in his approach, more akin to a Willow Creek seeker church, or an Emergent one!

 

What exact statement?
He believes the O.T. He does not believe it is essential to the doctrines of Salvation.

 

He does walk that line. You must keep in mind that he is dealing with people that reject on iits face any assertion of absolute truth. His witnessing approach works well in dealing with younger generation of un churched, secularly educated. They do not believe The Bible. They don't care what it says. They are willing to investigate. Ask them "Why did all Jesus apostles die agonizing deaths to advance a lie that in no way profited them financially?" They will research it. They will confirm in secular sources that the apostles were martyred. They will really question why Peter was willing to die upside down on a cross to perpetuate a hoax.

 

He seems to be saying that we are no longer to obey the Law, and also that the Church got rid of the OT, as was built upon jesus alone now?

 

He is saying we only have to keep 2 laws and in their keeping the law is kept.