Its definitely not exclusive to the Charismatic Movement. The biggest clowns I know are in the pulpit of liberal Baptist Churches.
-
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 wants to "Unhitch" the O.T. from the N.T.
- Thread starter Reformed
- Start date
- Status
Nothing can compete with the Charismatics that have holy laughter, threw up cancer, and basically act like presenting a bad play!
Yep, the liberal pastor of the local First Baptist Church can compete with anyone.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
I really don't know why anyone would even listen to Andy Stanley, because he is a heretic. Here are some of his blatant heresies that show what he really believes about the Infallible, Inerrant, Unique, Word of Almighty God, the Holy Bible.
Don’t believe in Jesus’ virgin birth? Not a problem, says Andy Stanley
https://entreatingfavor.com/andy-stanley-homosexual-affirmation/
Don’t believe in Jesus’ virgin birth? Not a problem, says Andy Stanley
https://entreatingfavor.com/andy-stanley-homosexual-affirmation/
I cannot judge if he is really saved, but can judge his theology as being really wrong, and needs to step down!
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
neither do I judge him on his salvation. I use "heretic" in the sense of the OED definition, "A person believing in or practicing religious heresy"
I can agree with that use of the term in this case!I just wonder what His father Charles thinks about all of this.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
from what I understand, they had some very bad fall-outs over the years, but not too sure if it was because of Andy's theology?
Think that a big part of it was due to how Andy felt that His dad should have stepped down from being Pastor of the church when His divorce went through.
Andy Stanley said:
"[First century] Church leaders unhitched the church from the worldview, value system, and regulations of the Jewish scriptures,"
This statement is so manifestly untrue in the light of the first part of Romans that it completely boggles my mind, angers me, and seems to make sense only in letting Modernity define what is right and wrong instead of the bible.
Here are some treasures from scripture that show it is utter nonsense to say the worldview and value system of the OT is antiquated:
Romans 2:20b
because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—
Romans 3:1-2
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
The Greek in Romans 2:20 is knowledge of a high character and truth means just that. It may be difficult for many to understand in light of Modernity, but the Law is the very Words of God, which He went to great lengths to teach His chosen people. If we had to live through anything like Exodus to get to the point where we are then given the Law, after all we had been through, we would realize that the Law is supremely precious. The preciousness and goodness of the Law is beyond reproach, but why should Gentiles love the Law?
Romans 3:20
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
I must stop and address that in the exegesis of Romans, you have to ask yourself what definition of sin Paul and the Spirit are using. This verse makes it abundantly clear that sin, in the Book of Romans, is to be contrary to God's Law. The very sin Jesus saves us from is the sin of not obeying God's Law.
It may be argued that the NT gives us plenty of moral commands, why not use these instead of the Law? However, it must be remembered that few had the whole NT back in Rome in the 1st century. The OT scriptures were in almost every city though. It must be remembered that the bible in the very early days of the faith, when it was spreading like wildfire, were those in which conviction of sin likely had to come about by failure to obey the commands of the OT.
Also, the go to section of Romans 3:10-18 was written with the Law in mind as the holy standard of right and wrong.
Romans 3:29-31
29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Now the whole gist of Romans 2-4 is to identify salvation coming about by faith in Jesus Christ, but the Spirit through Paul, leaves many great theological gold nuggets lying around to understand so much more about the OT.
In light of all of this, this verse is simple to understand in at least one way:
1. We uphold the Law that convicts us of sin in the first place and explains right and wrong by God's standards.
Now Andy Stanley has a point of real biblical studies contention on one issue: Acts 15 and what it means for Gentile Christians. Are the regulations of the Law still binding? Problem here is I do not have the biblical knowledge to declare a hard and fast position on this specific debate. It is an old and enduring debate though.
Thus, the key question to me is
How do the moral commands of the Law and those in the NT mesh in their application for Gentile Christians?
"[First century] Church leaders unhitched the church from the worldview, value system, and regulations of the Jewish scriptures,"
This statement is so manifestly untrue in the light of the first part of Romans that it completely boggles my mind, angers me, and seems to make sense only in letting Modernity define what is right and wrong instead of the bible.
Here are some treasures from scripture that show it is utter nonsense to say the worldview and value system of the OT is antiquated:
Romans 2:20b
because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—
Romans 3:1-2
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
The Greek in Romans 2:20 is knowledge of a high character and truth means just that. It may be difficult for many to understand in light of Modernity, but the Law is the very Words of God, which He went to great lengths to teach His chosen people. If we had to live through anything like Exodus to get to the point where we are then given the Law, after all we had been through, we would realize that the Law is supremely precious. The preciousness and goodness of the Law is beyond reproach, but why should Gentiles love the Law?
Romans 3:20
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
I must stop and address that in the exegesis of Romans, you have to ask yourself what definition of sin Paul and the Spirit are using. This verse makes it abundantly clear that sin, in the Book of Romans, is to be contrary to God's Law. The very sin Jesus saves us from is the sin of not obeying God's Law.
It may be argued that the NT gives us plenty of moral commands, why not use these instead of the Law? However, it must be remembered that few had the whole NT back in Rome in the 1st century. The OT scriptures were in almost every city though. It must be remembered that the bible in the very early days of the faith, when it was spreading like wildfire, were those in which conviction of sin likely had to come about by failure to obey the commands of the OT.
Also, the go to section of Romans 3:10-18 was written with the Law in mind as the holy standard of right and wrong.
Romans 3:29-31
29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Now the whole gist of Romans 2-4 is to identify salvation coming about by faith in Jesus Christ, but the Spirit through Paul, leaves many great theological gold nuggets lying around to understand so much more about the OT.
In light of all of this, this verse is simple to understand in at least one way:
1. We uphold the Law that convicts us of sin in the first place and explains right and wrong by God's standards.
Now Andy Stanley has a point of real biblical studies contention on one issue: Acts 15 and what it means for Gentile Christians. Are the regulations of the Law still binding? Problem here is I do not have the biblical knowledge to declare a hard and fast position on this specific debate. It is an old and enduring debate though.
Thus, the key question to me is
How do the moral commands of the Law and those in the NT mesh in their application for Gentile Christians?
AS might be stating that under the New Covenant relationship, we just are to keep the law of Christ now, but that view is referred too as New Covenant theology, and is misunderstanding the relationship between law and grace!
- Status