• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Andy Stanley and Mass Deception

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndyMartin

Active Member
You have again picked up the goal posts and moved them 60 yards down the field. If I address this point, are you done, or are you going to jump somewhere else?

We are here dealing with Andy Stanley, and his handling of the Word of God. What I have quoted directly from what he has said on the Virgin Birth, is nothing short of heretical, and cannot imagine anyone trying to defend this.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Paul did indeed say, "ALL Scripture is Inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16). I doubt that all that Paul ever said is recorded in the New Testament. Why are we even arguing about moot points?
Yes, he did. So did Stanley. But Paul said that to Timothy (and the Church), not to the pagans in Athens.

It is not a moot point because it is the point Stanley has repeatedly made in defense of his comments.
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hello, I agree that all of the Books in the New Testament, all 27 of them, were there before 90 A.D. However, Church history informs us that some were "disputed" at various times, even by the Orthodox. But at about 367 they were all recognized as Canonical and formed part of the New Testament. This is important.
I know you agree that they were all written in the 1st century. What i'm saying is that Stanley definition of the Bible of being "all 66 books leather bound together" is him playing semantics to try to make his point of undercutting the Scripture. He does't say the canon was not fully recognized until the 4th century (true) he says there was no Bible until the 4th century. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well. Sorry about that since we are on the same side of this debate.
 

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We are here dealing with Andy Stanley, and his handling of the Word of God. What I have quoted directly from what he has said on the Virgin Birth, is nothing short of heretical, and cannot imagine anyone trying to defend this.
Again. You quote out of context. Again, here is Stanley's belief. After this, I am out. I have no desire to chase your floating finish line.

“The real story is the handful of Southern Baptist professors and writers (not so much preachers) who seem to have nothing else to do but listen to bits and pieces of my messages,” he said in his statement to The Post. “Anyone who listens to all three [sermons in the series] will know that I stand firmly within the orthodox Christian tradition regarding the incarnation of Jesus — including the birth narratives as presented [in] Matthew and Luke.”
 

AndyMartin

Active Member
Yes, he did. So did Stanley. But Paul said that to Timothy (and the Church), not to the pagans in Athens.

It is not a moot point because it is the point Stanley has repeatedly made in defense of his comments.

My Lord! what on earth is wrong with you people! Why this determination to keep on supporting this guy??? As I said, do you know that EVERY word that Paul used at Athens is in Acts 17?
 

AndyMartin

Active Member
Again. You quote out of context. Again, here is Stanley's belief. After this, I am out. I have no desire to chase your floating finish line.

“The real story is the handful of Southern Baptist professors and writers (not so much preachers) who seem to have nothing else to do but listen to bits and pieces of my messages,” he said in his statement to The Post. “Anyone who listens to all three [sermons in the series] will know that I stand firmly within the orthodox Christian tradition regarding the incarnation of Jesus — including the birth narratives as presented [in] Matthew and Luke.”

Sure, see you around!
 

AndyMartin

Active Member
I know you agree that they were all written in the 1st century. What i'm saying is that Stanley definition of the Bible of being "all 66 books leather bound together" is him playing semantics to try to make his point of undercutting the Scripture. He does't say the canon was not fully recognized until the 4th century (true) he says there was no Bible until the 4th century. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well. Sorry about that since we are on the same side of this debate.

Not a problem. Thanks for all your insight. It still baffles me that there is a small minority on here, who simply cannot understand the seriousness of what Andy Stanley teaches. About 3 years ago he spoke on homosexuality, were a husband and wife separated (or divorced) and then the husband turned up at his church one Sunday with his boyfriend (he had turned to homosexuality!), and instead of condemning this as a sin, Any Stanley referred to this man and his male partner, as a "modern family"! Is this even Biblical?
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
break it down for me, how is that true in your mind?
I will break it down through my own experience.

When I was saved it was a work of God through the gospel message. The foundation of my faith was Christ, not Scripture. In fact, at the time I did not have a good grasp on the Bible as a text (if it contained errors, if certain contributions were human and other parts divine, ect.). Looking back at the moment of salvation (as best I can), I don't think I even cared about Infallibility. I trusted not in Scripture but in its Author.

The idea that we are to witness based on "the Bible says so" is something that took me a bit off guard on two points. First, I thought Stanley was inventing a straw man argument (I thought it common that Christians held Christ and not the infallibility of Scripture as the foundation of their faith). Second, I did not expect so many to hold the doctrine of Infallibility as the foundation of their faith.

This is something I love about this board. Apart from some discussions I would not know the broader "Christian" faith outside of my own little world.

From your reply, thought, I take it you disagree. If so, why do you think that a lost person must be saved by the gospel and the doctrine of Infallibility? Since I was not (I came to learn about the Bible and its nature after I was saved....as a disciple of Christ, not a lost man being saved), do you think that I was saved not when I believed the gospel and was converted but when I came to hold the doctrine of Infallibility?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
My Lord! what on earth is wrong with you people! Why this determination to keep on supporting this guy??? As I said, do you know that EVERY word that Paul used at Athens is in Acts 17?
I am not supporting Stanley. I"m opposing you.

If Scripture is correct, then while we don't know all Paul said at Athens we do know that what he preached to the lost was the gospel of Jesus Christ (not doctrines he taught to believers). And we know that, while all of Scripture is true, it is the gospel of Christ through which we are saved.

Do you believe that Paul, in Athens, expounded on the nature of Scripture (pearls before the swine, so to speak) or do you believe the Bible is correct and all he preached was Christ?

How can you justify preaching the gospel yet denying its power to save by insisting on amendments to the gospel handed down?
 
Last edited:

AndyMartin

Active Member
I am not supporting Stanley. I"m opposing you.

If Scripture is correct, then while we don't know all Paul said at Athens we do know that what he preached to the lost was the gospel of Jesus Christ (not doctrines he taught to believers). And we know that, while all of Scripture is true, it is the gospel of Christ through which we are saved.

Do you believe that Paul, in Athens, expounded on the nature of Scripture (pearls before the swine, so to speak) or do you believe the Bible is correct and all he preached was Christ?

We are going around in circles, and getting nowhere! Time to give it a rest! Thanks for your time and input.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not a problem. Thanks for all your insight. It still baffles me that there is a small minority on here, who simply cannot understand the seriousness of what Andy Stanley teaches. About 3 years ago he spoke on homosexuality, were a husband and wife separated (or divorced) and then the husband turned up at his church one Sunday with his boyfriend (he had turned to homosexuality!), and instead of condemning this as a sin, Any Stanley referred to this man and his male partner, as a "modern family"! Is this even Biblical?
Not according to Jesus or paul!
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
We are going around in circles, and getting nowhere! Time to give it a rest! Thanks for your time and input.
And you.

It would be interesting to discuss the doctrines people believe necessary, in addition to the gospel, to be saved. We have discussed a few in the past (the Trinity was one)
 

AndyMartin

Active Member
And you.

It would be interesting to discuss the doctrines people believe necessary, in addition to the gospel, to be saved. We have discussed a few in the past (the Trinity was one)

I have started another thread, have your say!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And you.

It would be interesting to discuss the doctrines people believe necessary, in addition to the gospel, to be saved. We have discussed a few in the past (the Trinity was one)
I have started another thread, have your say!
There are some that we MUST agree with to get/be saved, such as death of Jesus, resurrection, Jesus is God, but things such as full inspiration is vital and important, but to me falls under SHOULD be held!
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

So I took the time this morning to read and resond to his response. But I will say that I think Jared Wilson does a much better job at respond 3 Nagging Problems with Andy Stanley’s Approach to the Bible

My Response:
The world has changed.

The approach most of us inherited doesn’t work anymore. Actually, it’s never worked all that well. In a culture that had high regard for the Bible, the traditional approach held its own. Those days are over. They’ve been over for a long time. If you think I’m using culture as an excuse to maintain a flawed hermeneutical approach, consider this.

1 he never defines what the “traditional approach” is just dismisses it out of hand.

Given that he doesn’t define it I’m left in a bit of a quandry but I’m going to assume that he is talking about exegetical preaching of the word of God. But studies show the fastest growing churches are those that do just that and are conservative in their theology.

Theology Matters: Comparing the Traits of Growing and Declining Mainline Protestant Church Attendees and Clergy

The Hot ‘New’ Church Growth Method


Eight years ago I shifted my approach. I didn’t announce it. I just did it. The results have been remarkable. You may not like my approach. That’s fine. I just hope you don’t stick with an approach you inherited because it’s comfortable. As I tell leaders all the time, “Marry your mission; date your model.” Your preaching and teaching model is just that—a model.

It may be time to break up.

The mission as laid out in Scripture of a Pastor is to “Preach the Word.”

1I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3For the time is coming when people will not endure sounda teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 5As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 2 Tim 2:1-5


There will always be people who won’t listen to sound teaching, but that doesn’t change a Pastors mission to Preach the Word.

Appealing to post-Christian people on the basis of the authority of Scripture has essentially the same effect as a Muslim imam appealing to you on the basis of the authority of the Quran. You may or may not already know what it says. But it doesn’t matter. The Quran doesn’t carry any weight with you. You don’t view the Quran as authoritative.


Oh this makes me see red. Equating the Bible with the Quarn. The Quran is a book written by a dead man. The Word of God is living and Active. It is the Word of God that brings Faith to people. The Word of God is sufficient, it doesn’t need help.

16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17that the man of Godb may be complete, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Heb 4:12

14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?c And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Romans 10:14-17

Jared Wilson over at the Gospel Coalitions says it so much better: "This is really important. Don’t miss what Stanley is unintentionally revealing here. He is saying that the Bible has the same effect on the lost as the Quran. There is zero room here for the actual reality of the Bible as God’s living Word. There is zero room here for the supernatural reality that the Bible carries a weight with lost people they don’t often expect it to! But this inadvertent nod to materialism and pragmatism is certainly expected from those with a proven track record of treating the Bible like an instruction manual rather than as the record of the very breath of God. If we truly believed the Bible was the very word of God, inspired by the Spirit and still cutting through to the quick, dividing joint and marrow, we wouldn’t for a second save it for special occasions. And we certainly wouldn’t equate its potential effectiveness with the Quran’s."
3 Nagging Problems with Andy Stanley’s Approach to the Bible

the Bible says, the Bible teaches, God’s Word is clear or anything along those lines. If that’s the approach to preaching and teaching you grew up with and are most comfortable with, you’re no doubt having a good ol’ throw-down debate with me in your head about now—a debate I’m sure you’re winning. But before you chapter and verse me against the wall and put me in a sovereignty-of-God headlock, would you stop and ask yourself: Why does this bother me so much? Why does this bother me so much—really?

I’ll tell you why it bothers me: Because this is a blatant attack on Sola Scriptura. This is a blatant attack on the Power of the Gospel. This is a blatant attack on the Living and Active word. You are depriving a lost word of the Power of God’s word when you don’t use it. As I quoted above Faith comes by hearing the word of God.


To be continued
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Best we can tell, this was the first evangelistic presentation made to an exclusively Gentile audience, in this case Cornelius’ close friends and relatives (Acts 10:24). After an introduction that must have offended every Gentile in the room, Peter dives into his message. Here it is.

”You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached—how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

”We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

Peter doesn’t leverage “The Bible says” this time around. He doesn’t quote from the Jewish Scriptures. Whereas it made up about 25 percent of his message to the Jews, not so here, which is understandable. While Gentiles respected the Jewish Scriptures for their antiquity, they didn’t consider them authoritative. On the contrary, as Peter readily admits in his regretful introduction, Jews and Gentiles had as little to do with each other as possible. The Jewish Scriptures were given to the Jews. So Peter focuses almost exclusively on the well-known and thus verifiable events surrounding the life, death and, ultimately, the resurrection of Jesus. Peter is clear; Jesus was more than a Jewish Messiah. The resurrection had implications beyond the nation of Israel. Jesus, Peter declared, was appointed by God to judge all the living and all the dead, both Jews and Gentiles.

Once his case was made, evidence presented, he adds:

“All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

He quotes Acts 10:34-43 here, and apparently never looked at the cross references. The beginning of Peter’s speech here has 9 references to the OT in the first 3 verses. He sandwiches his message in the authority of Scripture by alluding to the prophets at the beginning and calling back to them at the end.

Final Thoughts
Andy Stanley shows that he doesn’t trust in the sufficiency of Scripture. He can say all he wants about believing it is inerrant, but that is irrelevant if he doesn’t treat it as inerrant and sufficient. His actions betray his words. The Word of God is clear (see what I did there) that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. No one will ever be argued into the Christian Faith. We never see Jesus, or Paul, or Peter getting into philosophical arguments about the facts of Scripture. They throw them out there and let them stand.

We should follow their example and let the lion out of its cage. The Bible can handle it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top