Andy Stanley and Mass Deception

[blessedwife318]

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.

Except he did bring it up by casting doubt on Jericho, the flood, the Exodus, etc.
I have no problem restricting the Gospel to the essentials but that does include the fall, which is undermined if you ask how anyone can believe in 2 people running around a garden naked.

Let's not forget that this was all said in a church service, which brings up another issue with Stanley and the purpose of church worship services.
Mars Hill is how Paul deals with unsaved out in the world, he gets straight to the important Gospel.
His Epsitles show how he deals with the Church, and he pulls no punches, and never undermined the Scriptures.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

Except he did bring it up by casting doubt on Jericho, the flood, the Exodus, etc.
I have no problem restricting the Gospel to the essentials but that does include the fall, which is undermined if you ask how anyone can believe in 2 people running around a garden naked.

Let's not forget that this was all said in a church service, which brings up another issue with Stanley and the purpose of church worship services.
Mars Hill is how Paul deals with unsaved out in the world, he gets straight to the important Gospel.
His Epsitles show how he deals with the Church, and he pulls no punches, and never undermined the Scriptures.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I share your concerns here. I understand what Stanley is doing (we should not demand belief in the accuracy of Scripture in order to share the gospel) but I also think his efforts are misplaced. He could have encouraged the exact same thing - focusing on the gospel alone in evangelism - without downgrading truth.

There are people that I love, respect, and care about who disagree with me here - but I believe the pastor's role is as an under-shepherd (or "overseer") to the church rather than as an evangelist to the world (although I also realize the later bleeds over into the former to an extent). I believe Stanley has a view similar to a pastor and friend of mine in that everything the church does is focused directly on evangelism and getting people into the church. I believe the church is for the saved, and that evangelism goes out from the church.

Ironically, in terms of evangelism I was going to mention Paul's words at the Acropolis. I don't think his method would be welcomed by many today because he did something similar to what Stanley is trying to do. He let the world have its error and used that as a context to present the gospel. I think were his message a sermon to the church it would have been very different.

 

[AndyMartin]

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.

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.

Jon, I think you don't understand what infallibility and inerrancy, actually means? You say that Paul tells us that our Faith "is founded in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ", which is correct. However, where do we read these words of the Apostle Paul? The New Testament, 1 Corinthians chapter 15. It is because it is recorded in the Holy Bible, that we fully believe in it. If this is the Word of Almighty God, than it follows that His Word has to be Perfect as He is Perfect. This means that the Holy Bible has to be Infallible and Inherent as its Foundation to have the Authority of God stamped on it. You cannot separate the two, otherwise we have the problem that parts of the Bible can contain error!

Look, just because God is saving people through Stanley, does NOT mean that it is Bible based, or that God approves. There are thousands of lost souls in his church, who are deceived by his "theology", and the Lord, Who is willing that none perish, in His Great Love and Mercy, is saving precious souls. Roman Catholics are being saved in their churches, NOT because the churches or priests are right, but because God will do His work of bring souls into His Kingdom. I have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses have been saved through reading their New World Translation, which does not mean that God agrees with the translation, because, apart from the passages that they have tampered with for their "theology", the rest is the Word of God, which is the Power of God unto salvation to all who believes.

 

[AndyMartin]

What is wrong with people? I cannot understand why there are some who are still trying to defend Andy Stanley? There is no doubt that he has problems with the Infallibility of the Word of God. I have also posted on this thread, where AS thinks it not important whether the Virgin Birth as recorded in the Bible, is true of not. He say that all that matters is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. WRONG! The Virgin Birth speaks of the Incarnation of God the Son, when He entered this world as the God-Man. Without the Virgin Birth, there can be no death of Jesus nor Resurrection. No teacher or pastor can say one is important and the other is not. No Bible believing Christian can cast any doubts on any account in the Word of God, as AS is clearly doing. His stance is no doubt causing the faith of many to be shaken and producing in believers a worldly acceptance in the Word of God. He is clearly a danger to the church.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I think you don't understand what infallibility and inerrancy, actually means? You say that Paul tells us that our Faith "is founded in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ", which is correct. However, where do we read these words of the Apostle Paul? The New Testament, 1 Corinthians chapter 15. It is because it is recorded in the Holy Bible, that we fully believe in it. If this is the Word of Almighty God, than it follows that His Word has to be Perfect as He is Perfect. This means that the Holy Bible has to be Infallible and Inherent as its Foundation to have the Authority of God stamped on it. You cannot separate the two, otherwise we have the problem that parts of the Bible can contain error!

Look, just because God is saving people through Stanley, does NOT mean that it is Bible based, or that God approves. There are thousands of lost souls in his church, who are deceived by his "theology", and the Lord, Who is willing that none perish, in His Great Love and Mercy, is saving precious souls. Roman Catholics are being saved in their churches, NOT because the churches or priests are right, but because God will do His work of bring souls into His Kingdom. I have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses have been saved through reading their New World Translation, which does not mean that God agrees with the translation, because, apart from the passages that they have tampered with for their "theology", the rest is the Word of God, which is the Power of God unto salvation to all who believes.

I can assure you that I do understand what infallibility and inerrancy means. I may not have been the top student in seminary, but I was fairly good at definitions.

I believe we hold the same understanding of infallibility and inerrancy (you and I, I'm not sure about Stanley as his comment about the being true in what it affirms as true has been used as "double-talk"). I still don't believe that men are saved by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ AND affirming biblical inerrancy. The foundation of our faith is what affirms Scripture (not the other way around). Biblical doctrine is true not because it comes from the Bible but because God is a faithful God.

 

[JonC]

What is wrong with people? I cannot understand why there are some who are still trying to defend Andy Stanley?

I will take this as addressed to me as well since I've been responding here. Again, I want to make clear I am not defending Stanley (it is not my place to attack or defend the pastor). Do you believe the Bible was without error when Paul spoke of glorifying God that the gospel was being preached even if by false teachers? Or is this the only error in the Bible?

My point is not to defend Stanley but to highlight that while he may be wrong in diminishing one truth (or several truths) to highlight and convey the gospel, he does have a point. We may believe because "the Bible tells us so", but we cannot demand of the world to believe because "the Bible tells us so." We disagree because I believe the Bible is for Christians and the gospel for the lost. I don't think I'll budge here, but I do understand your concern.

 

[AndyMartin]

I can assure you that I do understand what infallibility and inerrancy means. I may not have been the top student in seminary, but I was fairly good at definitions.

I believe we hold the same understanding of infallibility and inerrancy (you and I, I'm not sure about Stanley as his comment about the being true in what it affirms as true has been used as "double-talk"). I still don't believe that men are saved by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ AND affirming biblical inerrancy. The foundation of our faith is what affirms Scripture (not the other way around). Biblical doctrine is true not because it comes from the Bible but because God is a faithful God.

My point being, that ALL that we believe and hold is based on the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God. And nothing short of a 100% perfect Bible is needed. A person can be saved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and faith in His finished work on the cross. But, if that same person doubts whether the Bible is God's Word and that it might contain error, then I would question if they were born again. the Holy Spirit gives all those who are born-again an assurance that they can fully depend on the Bible as the Infallible, Inerrant Word of God, and believe ALL (not most or some) it says, with full confidence. The problem with Infallibility and Inerrancy has been around for a over 150 years, and was championed by the likes of James Orr, Benjamin Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, Harold Lindsell, etc

 

[AndyMartin]

I will take this as addressed to me as well since I've been responding here. Again, I want to make clear I am not defending Stanley (it is not my place to attack or defend the pastor). Do you believe the Bible was without error when Paul spoke of glorifying God that the gospel was being preached even if by false teachers? Or is this the only error in the Bible?

My point is not to defend Stanley but to highlight that while he may be wrong in diminishing one truth (or several truths) to highlight and convey the gospel, he does have a point. We may believe because "the Bible tells us so", but we cannot demand of the world to believe because "the Bible tells us so." We disagree because I believe the Bible is for Christians and the gospel for the lost. I don't think I'll budge here, but I do understand your concern.

There are no errors in the original Bible autographs. Translations are just that, the work of fallible man, which do have some "errors" that are in them. Like, when versions remove the word "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16, and replace it with "who", or "he who", and omit the reference to the Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7, etc. Some are "scribal errors", while others are deliberate changes, men tampering with God's Word.

 

[Reynolds]

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.

Good for you, you have found some disgruntled people who left a mega Church. I can find disgruntled people who left any church.

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?

Its impossible to have a discussion with someone who keeps moving the goal posts. You have gone from Andy Stanley does not believe the literal account of creation, to Andy believes it, but his reasons for believing it are wrong.

The truth is you just don't like him and you will find fault with everything he does. It is like I told one of the other preachers in our county "It is easier for you to find fault with those who are succeeding, than to deal with why you are failing." He got mad, but his associate pastor busted out hysterically laughing. He does not like Andy because he has lost almost 1/3rd of his members to Andy's church. He liked him fine until that happened and then Andy became the devil. What he can't figure out is that the more he bashes Andy, the more members he loses.

 

[Reynolds]

Except he did bring it up by casting doubt on Jericho, the flood, the Exodus, etc.
I have no problem restricting the Gospel to the essentials but that does include the fall, which is undermined if you ask how anyone can believe in 2 people running around a garden naked.

Let's not forget that this was all said in a church service, which brings up another issue with Stanley and the purpose of church worship services.
Mars Hill is how Paul deals with unsaved out in the world, he gets straight to the important Gospel.
His Epsitles show how he deals with the Church, and he pulls no punches, and never undermined the Scriptures.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Again, you fail to understand Stanley's model of evangelism. You also fail to understand why it works.

 

[AndyMartin]

Good for you, you have found some disgruntled people who left a mega Church. I can find disgruntled people who left any church.

Its impossible to have a discussion with someone who keeps moving the goal posts. You have gone from Andy Stanley does not believe the literal account of creation, to Andy believes it, but his reasons for believing it are wrong.

The truth is you just don't like him and you will find fault with everything he does. It is like I told one of the other preachers in our county "It is easier for you to find fault with those who are succeeding, than to deal with why you are failing." He got mad, but his associate pastor busted out hysterically laughing.

Hi Reynolds, you see, it is not about whether we like AS or not, this is really not the issue here. neither is it that we are in judgement on him, but, it is important to tell it as it is, when "pastors" who have the responsibility of being shepherds of the souls of those entrusted to their care, openly undermine the Word of God, and say things that would cause many to doubt themselves. Did you see my post earlier, with AS on the Virgin Birth, where he says, "Christianity does not hinge on the truth or even the stories about the birth of Jesus, it really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus"? This tells me that AS is content is saying that the Virgin Birth of Jesus could well be untrue.

 

[AndyMartin]

Again, you fail to understand Stanley's model of evangelism. You also fail to understand why it works.

It is God Who saves lost souls, even through those who are not faithful to Him or His Word. Please don't think that because God may use AS to save thousands, that this means that God condones what he is saying or doing!

 

[Reynolds]

Hi Reynolds, you see, it is not about whether we like AS or not, this is really not the issue here. neither is it that we are in judgement on him, but, it is important to tell it as it is, when "pastors" who have the responsibility of being shepherds of the souls of those entrusted to their care, openly undermine the Word of God, and say things that would cause many to doubt themselves. Did you see my post earlier, with AS on the Virgin Birth, where he says, "Christianity does not hinge on the truth or even the stories about the birth of Jesus, it really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus"? This tells me that AS is content is saying that the Virgin Birth of Jesus could well be untrue.

This is the problem. Andy believes in the authority if scripture. He believes in the Inerrancy if Scripture. He also believes that to reach a person which has been indoctrinated by post modern teaching (there is no truth, truth us relative to the individual) that you have to employ different strategies.

I will give you an example. I was having a conversation with someone who did not believe the Bible, but they did believe the historical account of the martyr of the apostles? I asked him "So, you think these men died aginizing, brutal, deaths to protect a lie? It got him thinking. He now believes.

 

[AndyMartin]

Lets hope this thread does not divert from what it was

This is the problem. Andy believes in the authority if scripture. He believes in the Inerrancy if Scripture. He also believes that to reach a person which has been indoctrinated by post modern teaching (there is no truth, truth us relative to the individual) that you have to employ different strategies.

I will give you an example. I was having a conversation with someone who did not believe the Bible, but they did believe the historical account of the martyr of the apostles? I asked him "So, you think these men died aginizing, brutal, deaths to protect a lie? It got him thinking. He now believes.

That is not the point here. How can ANY born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ make this remark?

"Christianity does not hinge on the truth or even the stories about the birth of Jesus, it really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus"?

Is it right for any pastor to say this? Can you deal with this?

Thanks

 

[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 infallibl

I was saved without holding to the inerrancy of Scripture. At the time, I had no opinion on the matter. But what happened was that God drew me to Himself and opened my eyes to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It was supernatural. He gave me a new heart and a new spirit. I was not the same, and I knew I was not the same even though I held no great understanding. And God put His Spirit in me. I died to myself and was made alive in Christ. I may not have known the Bible as a whole was without error, but I knew my Savior and My God.

Stanley's issue is in diminishing what may appear as foolishness to the lost by actively subduing certain doctrines. He is right, however, that while "the Bible says so" is appropriate for the church it doesn't work well in evangelism . But viewing Inerrancy as our foundation seems to deny the sufficiency of the gospel itself by insisting other "supporting" doctrines be accepted before one can be saved.

 

[JonC]

My point being, that ALL that we believe and hold is based on the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God. And nothing short of a 100% perfect Bible is needed. A person can be saved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and faith in His finished work on the cross. But, if that same person doubts whether the Bible is God's Word and that it might contain error, then I would question if they were born again. the Holy Spirit gives all those who are born-again an assurance that they can fully depend on the Bible as the Infallible, Inerrant Word of God, and believe ALL (not most or some) it says, with full confidence. The problem with Infallibility and Inerrancy has been around for a over 150 years, and was championed by the likes of James Orr, Benjamin Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, Harold Lindsell, etc

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, Andy Stanley us not arguing against the Inerrancy of scripture (which he states that he affirms) but against imposing the believers position of biblical authority ("the Bible says so") on the unchurched.

 

[blessedwife318]

Again, you fail to understand Stanley's model of evangelism. You also fail to understand why it works.

Oh I can understand why it fills seats. But filling seats does not equal evangelism. I'm listening to his Easter speech right now to see if he does a Gospel message. Because that is the key, without the Gospel it doesn't matter how much he entertains people on Sunday.

 

[Reynolds]

Oh I can understand why it fills seats. But filling seats does not equal evangelism. I'm listening to his Easter speech right now to see if he does a Gospel message. Because that is the key, without the Gospel it doesn't matter how much he entertains people on Sunday.

Let me explain to you how Andy operates. It might be a shocker. He does on occasion present the gospel message from the pulpit. Where the gospel is presented the strongest is in the life groups and small groups. Two of my cousins individually host separate small groups in this area. He us using the typical mega church model. 1. Draw a crowd with the Sunday service, or special event. 2. Get them plugged into a small group. 3. Disciple them.

Do I think its the ideal model? Not for me, but it is getting a lot of people saved, so I am not going to gripe about it.

 

[Revmitchell]

I know people who were saved for many years before they fully embraced authority of scripture. It is a process.

No it is not process it is a lack of discipleship.

 

[Revmitchell]

I will take this as addressed to me as well since I've been responding here. Again, I want to make clear I am not defending Stanley (it is not my place to attack or defend the pastor). Do you believe the Bible was without error when Paul spoke of glorifying God that the gospel was being preached even if by false teachers? Or is this the only error in the Bible?

My point is not to defend Stanley but to highlight that while he may be wrong in diminishing one truth (or several truths) to highlight and convey the gospel, he does have a point. We may believe because "the Bible tells us so", but we cannot demand of the world to believe because "the Bible tells us so." We disagree because I believe the Bible is for Christians and the gospel for the lost. I don't think I'll budge here, but I do understand your concern.

OK but our job is not to diminish solid truth to make it more palatable. We need to preach the word whether it is convenient or not. I am pretty sure Paul addressed this with young Timothy.