Andy Stanley and Mass Deception

[Yeshua1]

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.

He seems that he has bought into that the Bible must be "reconciled" to accepted scientific and cultural "truths" now!

 

[Revmitchell]

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?

Actually I think Stanley's whole point is pedantic and unnecessary. It is not necessary to for Christians to say things that diminish the truth of God's word and its reliability to win people to Christ. It is an argument looking for a place to land.

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually I think Stanley's whole point is pedantic and unnecessary. It is not necessary to for Christians to say things that diminish the truth of God's word and its reliability to win people to Christ. It is an argument looking for a place to land.

He seems to want to explain away all things Christian in order to be able to appeal to most folks now!

 

[AndyMartin]

He seems to want to explain away all things Christian in order to be able to appeal to most folks now!

the word is compromise!

 

[JonC]

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:


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




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.




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



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

I think Stanley is intentionally vague on some doctrines. Unfortunately, he's not alone. My issue is the message he sends to the church, not the world. I do not expect those without Christ to hold the Bible as infallible. So my issue is that I see Stanley making a pretty good point but at the expense of other truths. Also, there seems to be a confusion in terms of the purpose of the assembly.

 

[JonC]

Actually I think Stanley's whole point is pedantic and unnecessary. It is not necessary to for Christians to say things that diminish the truth of God's word and its reliability to win people to Christ. It is an argument looking for a place to land.

The issue is not one of diminishing the Truth but one of "casting pearls". Quite simply, the lost do not need discipleship, they need to be saved. Only then can they truly understand and accept the things of God. Discipleship apart from salvation is nothing but a barrier. The reason is that conversion is a supernatural act of God. I don't know why so many (2 or 3) insist on Infallibility taught to the list.....its amazing and unbiblical. Save discipleship for the church and preach the gospel if Christ to the lost. Make disciples before you disciple them.

 

[Revmitchell]

The issue is not one of diminishing the Truth but one of "casting pearls". Quite simply, the lost do not need discipleship, they need to be saved. Only then can they truly understand and accept the things of God. Discipleship apart from salvation is nothing but a barrier. The reason is that conversion is a supernatural act of God. I don't know why so many (2 or 3) insist on Infallibility taught to the list.....its amazing and unbiblical. Save discipleship for the church and preach the gospel if Christ to the lost. Make disciples before you disciple them.

Ok look I listened to Stanley and I have read your post, but fail to see where this is an actual problem. Help me out here.

 

[JonC]

Ok look I listened to Stanley and I have read your post, but fail to see where this is an actual problem. Help me out here.

I have no problem with him. I just think he made his point poorly, and that the point addressed windmills and not dragons. He was, I believe, deliberately controversial without justification. My objection was against misrepresenting what he had said (his clarifications posted several posts back) by claiming Stanley rejected biblical Inerrancy based on the comments in the OP.

Personally, neither Stanley or his father are my cup of tea.

 

[JonC]

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!

I don't believe you can be a Christian and deny the Trinity. But I don't think you have to understand the doctrine to be a Christian.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have no problem with him. I just think he made his point poorly, and that the point addressed windmills and not dragons. He was, I believe, deliberately controversial without justification. My objection was against misrepresenting what he had said (his clarifications posted several posts back) by claiming Stanley rejected biblical Inerrancy based on the comments in the OP.

Personally, neither Stanley or his father are my cup of tea.

No, what I means is where is there a problem with holding to inerrancy that keeps the lost from coming to Christ. I don't think it exists and it appears that guys like Stanley create these mythical problems to justify bad theology.

 

[JonC]

No, what I means is where is there a problem with holding to inerrancy that keeps the lost from coming to Christ. I don't think it exists and it appears that guys like Stanley create these mythical problems to justify bad theology.

Oh....I believe all Christians should hold to inerrancy. The problem is when our defence for the faith is "the Bible tells me so" as if this should be meaningful to the lost.

 

[Revmitchell]

Oh....I believe all Christians should hold to inerrancy. The problem is when our defence for the faith is "the Bible tells me so" as if this should be meaningful to the lost.

Yet another argument looking for a place to land.

 

[Revmitchell]

Oh....I believe all Christians should hold to inerrancy. The problem is when our defence for the faith is "the Bible tells me so" as if this should be meaningful to the lost.

Hold on here? If our authority for believing in Jesus is not scripture then what is it supposed to be? Can you find an example of someone who was won to the Lord minus the authority of scripture, from scripture? I will always stand on scripture as the authority of my faith. I would not allow someone to be on my staff who did not nor would I allow someone on our outreach team who did not. I find that idea abhorrent and wrongheaded.

 

[JonC]

Hold on here? If our authority for believing in Jesus is not scripture then what is it supposed to be? Can you find an example of someone who was won to the Lord minus the authority of scripture, from scripture? I will always stand on scripture as the authority of my faith. I would not allow someone to be on my staff who did not nor would I allow someone on our outreach team who did not. I find that idea abhorrent and wrongheaded.

Careful. Remember the comment in question. Stanley presented the gospel accounts as proof and as eyewitness accounts. What he objected to was expecting the lost to adopt the idea that the Bible is proof enough. Your abhorrence is misplaced a bit.

 

[Revmitchell]

Careful. Remember the comment in question. Stanley presented the gospel accounts as proof and as eyewitness accounts. What he objected to was expecting the lost to adopt the idea that the Bible is proof enough. Your abhorrence is misplaced a bit.

No, not misplaced at all. And there may be those who are inept at sharing the gospel but by in large conversations are not really had a to whether the bible is proof enough. Again an argument looking for a place to land. Quite franakly I am suspicious of it.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe you can be a Christian and deny the Trinity. But I don't think you have to understand the doctrine to be a Christian.

True, as none if us can really understand the Trinity, as that os taught in the Bible, but we accept it to be the truth due to God being inerrant in his word to us!

 

[Yeshua1]

the word is compromise!

He does seem to want to eliminate objections to the faith, but in his attempt to do that, he seems to actually be denying much of the faith!

 

[AndyMartin]

He does seem to want to eliminate objections to the faith, but in his attempt to do that, he seems to actually be denying much of the faith!

Yes, but like all who deceive, they use cunning to do it!

 

[JonC]

No, not misplaced at all. And there may be those who are inept at sharing the gospel but by in large conversations are not really had a to whether the bible is proof enough. Again an argument looking for a place to land. Quite franakly I am suspicious of it.

I would have been skeptical a few years ago, but having weathered enough "the Bible is a book written by man to control people" objections I can at least see the issue (even as I think Stanley's comments misplaced).

 

[Reynolds]

No, not misplaced at all. And there may be those who are inept at sharing the gospel but by in large conversations are not really had a to whether the bible is proof enough. Again an argument looking for a place to land. Quite franakly I am suspicious of it.

Have you dealt much with the post modern thinker? They do not believe in absolute truth. They do not believe The Bible is true because they do not believe anything is true. They believetruth is situationally relevant. They believe truth is different for each person. What is true for you may or may not be true for me. This is the carp that our schools and universities are indoctrinating our Children with. Stanley's approach is one of the more effective approaches I have seen used to deal with post modern thinking. "The Bible tells me so" and $1.75 will get you a cup of coffee when you are talking with a post modernist.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 2:30 AM Pacific.