Andy Stanley and Mass Deception

[JonC]

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.

I agree. But at the same time it is not our job to demand the doctrine of the Church be accepted by the lost. Preach the gospel to the lost. Edify and equip the saints.

 

[Revmitchell]

it is not our job to demand the doctrine of the Church be accepted by the lost.

I don't get it. Who is doing that?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

All of those errors are very bad, as they involve a deniel of the essentials of the faith pretty much!

 

[AndyMartin]

All of those errors are very bad, as they involve a deniel of the essentials of the faith pretty much!

Yes, you are right, but some on here are blinded to this!

 

[AndyMartin]

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.

Exactly!

 

[AndyMartin]

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.

Are you Andy Stanley?

 

[Reynolds]

Discipleship is a process.

 

[Reynolds]

Are you Andy Stanley?

No. If I was, I would be too busy to hang out on here posting.

 

[AndyMartin]

Discipleship is a process.

Sure, but does this mean we can say that the Virgin Birth could be untrue?

 

[blessedwife318]

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.

I"m well aware of the Mega Church Model. I Grew Up in a Mega Church and was more than happy when I was able to leave it behind and I could go to a Church that took Christianity and the Gospel seriously and didn't rely on bait and switch to fill the seats.

So I just listened to his Easter Speech which should be the cream of the crop of Gospel presentations. And here were my observations
At 2 different points (apporximently 13 min mark and 32 min mark) he repeats his lie about the Bible not existing until the 4th century, which really undercuts his point about 1 Cor being written in the 50s.
At the 24 min mark he brings up skeptics view on the 4 Gospels being late, and possiblity that Matthew and John have unknown authors.

At the 37 min mark we get his invitation, which I will give him credit for mentioning sin, but he never defined it, never explained why Jesus died, His Righteous life, No talk of Judgement. No mention of Repentance. In other words there was not enough information in his 30 second invitation for someone to know and Trust Jesus as their Savior and Turn from their sins.

As far as the seeker sensitive model goes it doesn't work. We know it doesn't work because the founder of it Bill Hybell and Willow Creek did a survey and found it didn't work.
Willow Creek Repents?

And yet here we are 10 years later with people still doing the same thing.

 

[blessedwife318]

There is a reason why every doctrinal statement starts (including North Point Ironically) with the inerrency of Scripture, because that is the source of all our information that follows. Even the oldest Creed we have found in 1 Cor points to Scripture.

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 1 Cor 15:3-7

And this is being presented to a gentile church, in a very pegan city, yet Paul just lays out Scripture (or Because the Bible Says So) and expects that to be enough because it is.

He commends the Berean for searching the Scriptures to see if what he is saying matches what the "Bible says"

Andy Stanley whole semantic game wears thin.
Scripture = The Bible
the Word of God = the Bible
The Law and the Prophets = The Bible.

When he says that the Bible did not exist until the 4th century he is making a false claim.
Jesus quote extensively from the OT as do the NT writers.
Above we see Paul referring to Scripture that Points to Christ death and Resurrection.
Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture
And the early church fathers all quote extensively from the NT.

 

[AndyMartin]

I"m well aware of the Mega Church Model. I Grew Up in a Mega Church and was more than happy when I was able to leave it behind and I could go to a Church that took Christianity and the Gospel seriously and didn't rely on bait and switch to fill the seats.

So I just listened to his Easter Speech which should be the cream of the crop of Gospel presentations. And here were my observations
At 2 different points (apporximently 13 min mark and 32 min mark) he repeats his lie about the Bible not existing until the 4th century, which really undercuts his point about 1 Cor being written in the 50s.
At the 24 min mark he brings up skeptics view on the 4 Gospels being late, and possiblity that Matthew and John have unknown authors.

At the 37 min mark we get his invitation, which I will give him credit for mentioning sin, but he never defined it, never explained why Jesus died, His Righteous life, No talk of Judgement. No mention of Repentance. In other words there was not enough information in his 30 second invitation for someone to know and Trust Jesus as their Savior and Turn from their sins.

As far as the seeker sensitive model goes it doesn't work. We know it doesn't work because the founder of it Bill Hybell and Willow Creek did a survey and found it didn't work.
Willow Creek Repents?

And yet here we are 10 years later with people still doing the same thing.

To be fair to AS, I heard the two parts of this message, where he says that we did not have the Bible till the 4th century, and must agree with him here. The Bible consists of 66 Books, 39 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New. While the Old Testament was completed at the time when Christ was Born, the New Testament was not completed as 27 Books before the 4th century A.D. They were in separate Books, and were still being assessed by the early Church as to which could form part of the NT Canon. It was in A.D. 367, that all of the Books are mentioned as being in the completed Canon of the NT, in a letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. After this time, both the Church in the East and the West (early Christendom) fully accepted all of the 27 Books as well as the 39 of the OT.

I heard where AS says that Paul's account of the Resurrection in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians, was not his own work, but was taken from a non-biblical "creed" that was around. This is complete nonsense, and what Liberal "scholars" believe the case for parts of Scripture. There is no reason to question that God the Holy Spirit directly told Paul all that he wrote, as He did to all the other writers of the entire Bible. AS is introducing doubts about the Authority and Reliability of the original Scriptures.

 

[JonC]

I don't get it. Who is doing that?

If we witness to others using Infallibility rather than Christ as the foundation of our faith ("Bible says so") then we are. At least one here has stated precisely that. But I think Stanley is fighting straw men for the most part.

Stanley could have simply said "the Roman Road passages are not true because they are in the Bible. They are in the Bible because they are true."

Scripture affirms this as the prophets look beyond what is written to the Author and it is there they put their faith. God is faithful to His word.

 

[Reynolds]

Sure, but does this mean we can say that the Virgin Birth could be untrue?

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?

 

[blessedwife318]

To be fair to AS, I heard the two parts of this message, where he says that we did not have the Bible till the 4th century, and must agree with him here. The Bible consists of 66 Books, 39 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New. While the Old Testament was completed at the time when Christ was Born, the New Testament was not completed as 27 Books before the 4th century A.D. They were in separate Books, and were still being assessed by the early Church as to which could form part of the NT Canon. It was in A.D. 367, that all of the Books are mentioned as being in the completed Canon of the NT, in a letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. After this time, both the Church in the East and the West (early Christendom) fully accepted all of the 27 Books as well as the 39 of the OT.

I think it is semantic to limit the Bible to a unified leather bound book containing all 66 books. (Going with that definition I'm not reading the Bible when it pull it up a passage on my phone since its not a leather bound book.)
Jesus and the Apostles would have had the Septuagint or the OT in Scroll form. And Revelation was written before the close of the 1st century meaning all 27 books of the NT are around in Scroll form by that point.

If you want to get into the recognizing of the canon then yes that was firmly established in the 4th century, but the books that now make up the canon were all around by the end of the 1st century, which is why I take so much issue with him saying the Bible did not exist until the 4th century.

 

[AndyMartin]

If we witness to others using Infallibility rather than Christ as the foundation of our faith ("Bible says so") then we are. At least one here has stated precisely that. But I think Stanley is fighting straw men for the most part.

Stanley could have simply said "the Roman Road passages are not true because they are in the Bible. They are in the Bible because they are true."

I cannot ever agree to any Christian witnessing for Jesus, and using the Holy Bible, not saying, "the Bible says", when we quote the Bible. This is modern-day nonsense. Who really cares if the unsaved world take offense to us saying, "the Bible says"? This whole Gospel is a STUMBLING BLOCK!

 

[Yeshua1]

You need to re-listen very carefully what he says and you can only conclude that he is most certainly undermining the Authority and Infallibility of the Word of God. There is no two ways about it.[/QUOTE.

Wonder what his more famous father thinks about this?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, you are right, but some on here are blinded to this!

Those issues should not ever be "tolerated" with erronous thinking!

 

[JonC]

I cannot ever agree to any Christian witnessing for Jesus, and using the Holy Bible, not saying, "the Bible says", when we quote the Bible. This is modern-day nonsense. Who really cares if the unsaved world take offense to us saying, "the Bible says"? This whole Gospel is a STUMBLING BLOCK!

Yet Paul simply preached Christ. He did not introduce infallibility or the Doctrine of the Trinity, or spiritual gifts...just the gospel. And somehow that was enough. (In terms of evangelusm )

 

[AndyMartin]

I think it is semantic to limit the Bible to a unified leather bound book containing all 66 books. (Going with that definition I'm not reading the Bible when it pull it up a passage on my phone since its not a leather bound book.)
Jesus and the Apostles would have had the Septuagint or the OT in Scroll form. And Revelation was written before the close of the 1st century meaning all 27 books of the NT are around in Scroll form by that point.

If you want to get into the recognizing of the canon then yes that was firmly established in the 4th century, but the books that now make up the canon were all around by the end of the 1st century, which is why I take so much issue with him saying the Bible did not exist until the 4th century.

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.

 

[AndyMartin]

Yet Paul simply preached Christ. He did not introduce infallibility or the Doctrine of the Trinity, or spiritual gifts...just the gospel. And somehow that was enough.

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?