Andy Stanley and Mass Deception

[Reynolds]

AS is the pastor of the second largest church in the US. He did not start yesterday!

I am not talking about Andy. I am talking about people converted by his ministry. Like I said earlier, he has a church right down the road. He is reaching university students by the drove with the gospel. These kids who are post modern, agnostic, athiest, and everything else under the sun are being saved. I can guarantee you 99.9% of them would not be converted by someone shouting "The Bible says your going to burn in Heeeeeelllllllllllllllllluuhhh!"

 

[Reynolds]

This is what I have just typed from listening to the above video clip:

"The foundation of our faith is not the Scriptures, the foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible...you can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth, so what, who is Jesus...when I deal with Adam and Eve I quickly say, hey this is one of those odd stories, this is that story you heard growing up about two naked people, running around in a garden, and who can believe that, there are many creation myths"

Can you read here? He CLEARLY says that Adam and Eve is a creation MYTH. This means it is UNTRUE! He questions the Foundation and Infallibility of the Holy Bible

What more do you want?

No. He actually does not say it is a myth. This is what he said "So when we talk about the Scriptures, and especially the reliability of the Scriptures, I think anytime that we can tie the Old Testament especially back to Jesus, we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know. . .You can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth—so what?—who is Jesus?. . .Here's why I believe this [Adam and Eve] actually happened. Not because the Bible says so, but because in the gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. It appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures and if He believed they were historical, I believe they were historical because anybody who can predict their own death and resurrection and pull it off, I just believe anything they say...."

 

[JonC]

He says that it does not matter whether Adam and Eve is a "myth", or that the Infallibility of the Bible is not our Foundation? This is very serious stuff which is heresy. This is the same guy who also questions the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, and that homosexuals who visit his church as a "couple" represent the "modern family". He is VERY dangerous.

I would hope that the Infallibility of the Bible is not our Foundation, and I'd likewise pray that people would cease adding to the gospel message such a requirement for salvation. Although I believe the Bible infallible we exceed biblical warrant when we require the world to accept such doctrines before they can be saved. This seems to be Stanley's ultimate point, and his error is not in the point itself but in minimizing truth to achieve those goals.

 

[James Flagg]

He CLEARLY says that Adam and Eve is a creation MYTH. This means it is UNTRUE!

No, it doesn't. The word "myth" has more than one definition and you are equivocating them. Stanley called Genesis and Adam and Eve a "creation myth" because that's exactly what they are.

"Myth" does not mean (only) something that isn't true. A "myth" in this sense is a traditional story or a story that explains something.

Assuming every word in The Book of Genesis is true, it can still correctly be called a creation myth.

(going back into hibernation mode; peace out BB) -JF

 

[Bluefalcon]

No. He actually does not say it is a myth. This is what he said "So when we talk about the Scriptures, and especially the reliability of the Scriptures, I think anytime that we can tie the Old Testament especially back to Jesus, we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know. . .You can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth—so what?—who is Jesus?. . .Here's why I believe this [Adam and Eve] actually happened. Not because the Bible says so, but because in the gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. It appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures and if He believed they were historical, I believe they were historical because anybody who can predict their own death and resurrection and pull it off, I just believe anything they say...."

Context is important. Funny how this did not appear in Andy Martin's vilifying posts...a little dishonest to say the least...misrepresenting someone's actual views is an automatic fail in debates. Game over.

 

[Van]

Did you ever visit the zoo I suggested a long time ago? Your comments about AS are way off base, as is much of your theology Van!

More disparagement. More empty charges. The world tears people down, Christians build people up. Who said we should watch our words because they reveal out heart? Tick Tock

Here is the actual post:
Yet another thread devoted to disparaging those that differ.

Lots of young people in High School or College, leave their Christian church because their faith in the validity of the Bible has been undermined. Many thoughtful people have tried to come up with a strategy to deal with the atheist arguments presented as facts in our godless education system.

Spiritualizing scripture (claiming it is allegorical rather than historical) whenever the Bible seems to say something contrary to what is believed to be known facts is one approach. As others have noted, such an approach is deeply flawed and destined for failure.

Rather than burning AS at the stake, perhaps we should prayerfully consider the way forward. Vouchers anyone.

 

[blessedwife318]

found a very good post on the problems with Stanley's Sermon and his underlying premise.
"So if we don’t look to Scripture as the reason for believing in Jesus, then to what do we look? Stanley answers:

Jesus loves you. This you know, for John who watched Him die and had breakfast with Him on the beach tells you so. Jesus loves you, this I know, for Luke who thoroughly investigated the events wrote them down meticulously and interviewed eye witnesses, made sure it was so. Jesus loves you, this I know, because a Pharisee who hated Christians, who was going to arrest Christians, who was going to singlehandedly stop the Jesus movement, became Jesus follower and risked his life traveling all around the Gentile Mediterranean Rim to make sure that you know.

In other words, we don’t need an inspired Bible to know Jesus loves us we just need the testimony of these men. The problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that the words and stories of these men come from the Bible! All of the facts that Stanley appeals to—that John watched Jesus die, that Luke investigated these things, that Paul was a converted Pharisee—come from the Scriptures.

Perhaps Stanley would acknowledge this fact but simply insist that he is appealing to these documents not as inspired Scripture but just as reliable historical sources (similar to the kind of apologetic argument made by Wenham).

If so, then his view, in effect, would be, “Jesus loves me this I know, because historically reliable documents tell me so.”"

Is the Bible Foundational to Christianity? Engaging with Andy Stanley

 

[Reynolds]

found a very good post on the problems with Stanley's Sermon and his underlying premise.
"So if we don’t look to Scripture as the reason for believing in Jesus, then to what do we look? Stanley answers:

Jesus loves you. This you know, for John who watched Him die and had breakfast with Him on the beach tells you so. Jesus loves you, this I know, for Luke who thoroughly investigated the events wrote them down meticulously and interviewed eye witnesses, made sure it was so. Jesus loves you, this I know, because a Pharisee who hated Christians, who was going to arrest Christians, who was going to singlehandedly stop the Jesus movement, became Jesus follower and risked his life traveling all around the Gentile Mediterranean Rim to make sure that you know.

In other words, we don’t need an inspired Bible to know Jesus loves us we just need the testimony of these men. The problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that the words and stories of these men come from the Bible! All of the facts that Stanley appeals to—that John watched Jesus die, that Luke investigated these things, that Paul was a converted Pharisee—come from the Scriptures.

Perhaps Stanley would acknowledge this fact but simply insist that he is appealing to these documents not as inspired Scripture but just as reliable historical sources (similar to the kind of apologetic argument made by Wenham).

If so, then his view, in effect, would be, “Jesus loves me this I know, because historically reliable documents tell me so.”"

Is the Bible Foundational to Christianity? Engaging with Andy Stanley

Keep in mind who his target audience is here. That is the key. He wants to reach those who are turned off by stereotypical Christianity. He wants to reason with those who do not believe The Bible is true. Guess what? Its working! He is bringing souls into the kingdom.

 

[Reynolds]

This thread got me thinking back. I remember when back in the day Billy Graham was getting piled on and attacked for being too liberal.

 

[blessedwife318]

Keep in mind who his target audience is here. That is the key. He wants to reach those who are turned off by stereotypical Christianity. He wants to reason with those who do not believe The Bible is true. Guess what? Its working! He is bringing souls into the kingdom.

I've listened to probably a dozen of his speeches, and I've yet to hear a solid Gospel presentation. Getting people to come to a building, or listen to a speech online does not equal bringing them into the kingdom. Even in the message that is the subject of this thread there was no Gospel Presentation. No mention of Sin or Judgement. Just have a relationship with Jesus, who we know about through historically reliable manuscripts because he predicted his own death and resurrection. No word on why he had to die.

As far as I can tell he is more interested in entertaining goats than in feeding sheep and that is a problem.

 

[Reynolds]

I've listened to probably a dozen of his speeches, and I've yet to hear a solid Gospel presentation. Getting people to come to a building, or listen to a speech online does not equal bringing them into the kingdom. Even in the message that is the subject of this thread there was no Gospel Presentation. No mention of Sin or Judgement. Just have a relationship with Jesus, who we know about through historically reliable manuscripts because he predicted his own death and resurrection. No word on why he had to die.

As far as I can tell he is more interested in entertaining goats than in feeding sheep and that is a problem.

Do you know anyone who goes to his church?

You are impossible. In that one instance, Andy did not say why Jesus had to die. He tells why Jesus died quite regularly. People get saved in his ministry. I am aware that there is a huge difference between salvation and hanging out under the steeple. I am sure you will not admit that you misstated Andy's views. Hopefully, now that you have put yourself in the bottom of a hole, you will quit digging. If I had taken the words of a fellow Christian out of context as badly as you did, I would apologize instead of trying to go nitpick another area of his doctrine.

 

[JonC]

found a very good post on the problems with Stanley's Sermon and his underlying premise.
"So if we don’t look to Scripture as the reason for believing in Jesus, then to what do we look? Stanley answers:

Jesus loves you. This you know, for John who watched Him die and had breakfast with Him on the beach tells you so. Jesus loves you, this I know, for Luke who thoroughly investigated the events wrote them down meticulously and interviewed eye witnesses, made sure it was so. Jesus loves you, this I know, because a Pharisee who hated Christians, who was going to arrest Christians, who was going to singlehandedly stop the Jesus movement, became Jesus follower and risked his life traveling all around the Gentile Mediterranean Rim to make sure that you know.

In other words, we don’t need an inspired Bible to know Jesus loves us we just need the testimony of these men. The problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that the words and stories of these men come from the Bible! All of the facts that Stanley appeals to—that John watched Jesus die, that Luke investigated these things, that Paul was a converted Pharisee—come from the Scriptures.

Perhaps Stanley would acknowledge this fact but simply insist that he is appealing to these documents not as inspired Scripture but just as reliable historical sources (similar to the kind of apologetic argument made by Wenham).

If so, then his view, in effect, would be, “Jesus loves me this I know, because historically reliable documents tell me so.”"

Is the Bible Foundational to Christianity? Engaging with Andy Stanley

I believe one problem not mentioned thus far is the role of the pulpit. When Christians gather as a church they gather for prayer, edification, and discipleship…the building up of the saints. This is my understanding, and I understand people disagree, but along these lines Pastor Stanley’s teachings are misapplied.

That said, there is truth to what Stanley is saying in terms of evangelism. I do not think he is saying we don’t need the Bible but that the gospel itself is not the Bible. I think that you are reading too much into Stanley’s statements, but at the same time I think the pastor is trying to be edgy in witnessing to the lost while minimizing truths that are not necessarily a part of evangelism itself. I think this is how he can say those things yet arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion you present as the reasonable outcome. There is no contradiction because Stanley is not denying the Bible, or Inerrancy, or that the eyewitness accounts he relies upon is also Scripture. He is emphasizing Christ, perhaps and unfortunately at the expense of the nature of Scripture, but he is not denying what so many here seem to think he is denying.

As an example, some (myself included) would argue that one does not have to have to have a good understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. This is not diminishing God or Christ (I do believe one must accept the divinity of Christ). It would be a poor idea, I think, to base our evangelistic efforts on the Doctrine of the Trinity. But when we base the gospel on the Inerrancy of Scripture, we are doing the same thing (choosing a weaker foundation in place of the gospel itself). This doesn’t mean the Bible is not inerrant, but it does mean that men can hold misunderstandings or error while still believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved.

But again, I think Stanley has gone out of his way to diminish some truths in order to bring out an important point. I don't think he was right in doing this, and I do think it was to be controversial (he could have accomplished the same thing without the controversy, but probably without the publicity as well).

 

[blessedwife318]

Do you know anyone who goes to his church?

You are impossible. In that one instance, Andy did not say why Jesus had to die. He tells why Jesus died quite regularly. People get saved in his ministry. I am aware that there is a huge difference between salvation and hanging out under the steeple. I am sure you will not admit that you misstated Andy's views. Hopefully, now that you have put yourself in the bottom of a hole, you will quit digging. If I had taken the words of a fellow Christian out of context as badly as you did, I would apologize instead of trying to go nitpick another area of his doctrine.

Then maybe you can link to a speech where he does present the Gospel so I can listen, because I have yet to hear one. For someone that prides themselves on getting unchurched people into their doors I would expect to hear the Gospel preached in almost every sermon.

I have not misstated his view, it has been clear to most everyone on this thread.

I have read several article from people that have left North Point and all of them point out that it is seeker friendly, night club like atmosphere and use entertainment to fill the seats, not the Gospel. I have no respect for groups that embrace the seeker friendly idea of letting non Christian tell the church how it should be run.

 

[blessedwife318]

I believe one problem not mentioned thus far is the role of the pulpit. When Christians gather as a church they gather for prayer, edification, and discipleship…the building up of the saints. This is my understanding, and I understand people disagree, but along these lines Pastor Stanley’s teachings are misapplied.

That said, there is truth to what Stanley is saying in terms of evangelism. I do not think he is saying we don’t need the Bible but that the gospel itself is not the Bible. I think that you are reading too much into Stanley’s statements, but at the same time I think the pastor is trying to be edgy in witnessing to the lost while minimizing truths that are not necessarily a part of evangelism itself. I think this is how he can say those things yet arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion you present as the reasonable outcome. There is no contradiction because Stanley is not denying the Bible, or Inerrancy, or that the eyewitness accounts he relies upon is also Scripture. He is emphasizing Christ, perhaps and unfortunately at the expense of the nature of Scripture, but he is not denying what so many here seem to think he is denying.

As an example, some (myself included) would argue that one does not have to have to have a good understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. This is not diminishing God or Christ (I do believe one must accept the divinity of Christ). It would be a poor idea, I think, to base our evangelistic efforts on the Doctrine of the Trinity. But when we base the gospel on the Inerrancy of Scripture, we are doing the same thing (choosing a weaker foundation in place of the gospel itself). This doesn’t mean the Bible is not inerrant, but it does mean that men can hold misunderstandings or error while still believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved.

But again, I think Stanley has gone out of his way to diminish some truths in order to bring out an important point. I don't think he was right in doing this, and I do think it was to be controversial (he could have accomplished the same thing without the controversy, but probably without the publicity as well).

I have no problem with the idea that one does not have to embrace inerrancy to be saved, but I'm not sure how anyone can present and defend the Gospel without inerrancy. Andy Stanley is worried that the OT won't stand up under scrutiny, but seems to ignore the fact that the Gospels are also put under a lot of scrutiny. Late dates, document Q, questioning sources and reliability etc. are all out there for non Christians to find. Add into the mix the Gnostic books (especially in light of his claim that the Bible didn't exist until the 4th century) and you still have a recipe for kids to walk away from what John wrote, or what Peter wrote.

When it comes to the Bible I'm very much like Spuregon, you don't defend a lion you let it out if it's cage.

God's infallible word will always accomplish His purpose, so why would I want to stand in the way of that.

This generation is no different to any other generation, depraved sinners. They will not be argued into the faith, that comes by hearing the Word of God.

When Paul was in Athens at Mars Hill we don't see him reasoning with them about the gods of the pathion, but instead he uses it as a jumping point to talk about Sin Righteousness and judgment.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
Acts 17:30-31

That is what we should focus on when dealing with unsaved as that is what the Holy Spirit is convicting the world of.

8And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;10concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;11concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
John 16:8-11

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[AndyMartin]

No. He actually does not say it is a myth. This is what he said "So when we talk about the Scriptures, and especially the reliability of the Scriptures, I think anytime that we can tie the Old Testament especially back to Jesus, we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know. . .You can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth—so what?—who is Jesus?. . .Here's why I believe this [Adam and Eve] actually happened. Not because the Bible says so, but because in the gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. It appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures and if He believed they were historical, I believe they were historical because anybody who can predict their own death and resurrection and pull it off, I just believe anything they say...."

Do you actually understand what you have read, and your response? Are you simply trying to defend the undefendable on what AS has actually said? Let me take you through it once again.

From your own words above, here are the problems. "You can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth—so what?". Because it is NOT a "myth", it is the Word of God and FACTUAL. "Here's why I believe this [Adam and Eve] actually happened. Not because the Bible says so". Not because of the Divine Authority of the Word of Almighty God??? BUT "because in the gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve". This says to anyone, that I believe in the myth of Adam and Eve, NOT because of the account in the Book of Genesis, but because of what Jesus says in the Gospels. This is complete nonsense, as Jesus Himself says what He does, BECAUSE of the Genesis account! You cannot separate what Jesus says from the actual account in Genesis. How come you did not address the part when he says about Adam and Eve, is something you hear about as a child, where two people are running around in a garden naked, and then goes on to say, "who can believe that?". If this is not questioning the Authority of the Bible, then what is it?

 

[AndyMartin]

I would hope that the Infallibility of the Bible is not our Foundation, and I'd likewise pray that people would cease adding to the gospel message such a requirement for salvation. Although I believe the Bible infallible we exceed biblical warrant when we require the world to accept such doctrines before they can be saved. This seems to be Stanley's ultimate point, and his error is not in the point itself but in minimizing truth to achieve those goals.

If you think the Infallibility, and Inerrancy of the Holy Bible is "not our foundation", then you have very serious problems! We tell people what the Bible says, because IT IS The Word of Almighty God, and therefore fully Reliable and Trustworthy. As 2 Peter 1:16 says, "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty". Where did Stanley say that what he said is for people who are not saved? In any case, NO Christian should ever undermine the Word of God, as he has clearly done, by his Liberal language.

 

[AndyMartin]

No, it doesn't. The word "myth" has more than one definition and you are equivocating them. Stanley called Genesis and Adam and Eve a "creation myth" because that's exactly what they are.

"Myth" does not mean (only) something that isn't true. A "myth" in this sense is a traditional story or a story that explains something.

Assuming every word in The Book of Genesis is true, it can still correctly be called a creation myth.

(going back into hibernation mode; peace out BB) -JF

2 Peter 1:16, clearly says, "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty"

This is a term that the Liberals, who do not believe in the Infallibility of the Bible, use for Genesis Chapters 1-11, which they say is not literal in all that it says. They are NOT "creation myths", but FACTS and TRUE, these are the words that Bible-believing Christians use and not words that are open to other meaning like "myth"

 

[AndyMartin]

Andy Stanley on the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ:

"It is interesting because Matthew gives us a version of the birth of Jesus. Luke does, but Mark and John don’t even mention it; and a lot has been made of that. And you have heard me say some version of this a million times, but if somebody can predict their own death and 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. Christianity does not hinge on the truth or even the stories about the birth of Jesus, it really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus"

North Point

This is at the start of the message.

So the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ does not have to be even TRUE?

 

[JonC]

I have no problem with the idea that one does not have to embrace inerrancy to be saved, but I'm not sure how anyone can present and defend the Gospel without inerrancy. Andy Stanley is worried that the OT won't stand up under scrutiny, but seems to ignore the fact that the Gospels are also put under a lot of scrutiny. Late dates, document Q, questioning sources and reliability etc. are all out there for non Christians to find. Add into the mix the Gnostic books (especially in light of his claim that the Bible didn't exist until the 4th century) and you still have a recipe for kids to walk away from what John wrote, or what Peter wrote.

When it comes to the Bible I'm very much like Spuregon, you don't defend a lion you let it out if it's cage.

God's infallible word will always accomplish His purpose, so why would I want to stand in the way of that.

This generation is no different to any other generation, depraved sinners. They will not be argued into the faith, that comes by hearing the Word of God.

When Paul was in Athens at Mars Hill we don't see him reasoning with them about the gods of the pathion, but instead he uses it as a jumping point to talk about Sin Righteousness and judgment.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
Acts 17:30-31

That is what we should focus on when dealing with unsaved as that is what the Holy Spirit is convicting the world of.

8And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;10concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;11concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
John 16:8-11

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

When it comes to the nature of Scripture I completely agree. What we hold in our hand as we read our Bibles is nothing short of God’s revelation of Himself to man. Scripture is as inerrant as God is inerrant because He is its source. I think this is vital for Christians to know as they study and strive to grow more and more like Christ. We should not study Scripture in order to accept it, but rather to understand as best we can what we have already accepted as being true because it is God’s word. Unfortunately, I do not think this is always the case in our churches.

Where I disagree is that I do not believe (from what was brought out the last time we discussed this topic) that Stanley is worried that the OT won’t stand up under scrutiny. Instead it seems to me that he is trying to avoid the issue all together by restricting evangelism to the gospel alone.

Here is an example (of how I’m viewing Stanley’s comments):

I believe in a literal 6 day creation. In fact, I believe this is necessary because of the relationship between sin and death. This relationship (death entering through the sin of one man) is important to the gospel message. That said, when we witness to other people I don’t think that we need to go into the creation debate. This does not change the fact we hold these doctrines...nor does it diminish their importance (this is where I think Stanley's comments are questionable).

My view here is that Scripture is for the Church, the gospel message for the lost.

 

[JonC]

If you think the Infallibility, and Inerrancy of the Holy Bible is "not our foundation", then you have very serious problems!

No, brother, I don’t think so. Those who believe the doctrine of Infallibility and Inerrancy is the foundation of our faith have not only a serious problem but one that is impossible to reconcile.

Paul tells us that our faith is founded in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The topic here is not discipleship but evangelism (Stanley is dealing with the gospel witness and not the edification of the Church). So your “impossible problem” is that you are denying Paul’s words on one hand while holding them up as infallible and inerrant on another.

If we base our faith on the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible then to the lost we are on the same grounds as the Muslims. If, however, we base our faith on the gospel of Jesus Christ and on his death burial and resurrection then we hold the Bible as infallible and inerrant because it comes from the same Source. Don’t discount the necessity of the Spirit to understand Scripture so quickly.

Where did Stanley say that what he said is for people who are not saved?

He said that he believes the Bible is inerrant in everything it affirms. He also explained that what he is trying to do is reach the unchurched to whom many of these truths (which is beyond their grasp) has been put in front of the gospel and has become a barrier.

Andy Stanley Responds to Controversy About Biblical Inerrancy

Why 'The Bible Says So' Is Not Enough Anymore

I, for one, do not care for Stanley’s approach. That said, far too often Christians attack their own. Stanley does not answer to me and he doesn’t answer to you.. If Scripture is true, infallible, and inerrant then the appropriate response for you and I is to glorify God that people are being saved through Stanley’s ministry.

And, to be clear, I am not defending Stanley's ministry. I am arguing against attacking the man on a false premise. I am also arguing that there is some merit to the issue he brings up.