Recent quote and tweet from one of any Stanley's Sermons

[Revmitchell]

"The Christian faith doesn't rise and fall on the accuracy of 66 ancient documents. It rises and falls on the
identity of a single individual: Jesus of Nazareth."

Andy Stanley


Sometimes I don't know if he just says things for shock value or if he is this ignorant. One wouldn't think he would be involved in either. We cannot know who Jesus is unless we get it from scripture first. I am not discounting seeing God move in our lives and in the lives of others but even Jesus Himself said that scripture is that which points to Him. He walked the disciples through how they do. It was important to Jesus but not to Andy Stanley.

 

[alexander284]

"The Christian faith doesn't rise and fall on the accuracy of 66 ancient documents. It rises and falls on the
identity of a single individual: Jesus of Nazareth."

Andy Stanley


Sometimes I don't know if he just says things for shock value or if he is this ignorant. One wouldn't think he would be involved in either. We cannot know who Jesus is unless we get it from scripture first. I am not discounting seeing God move in our lives and in the lives of others but even Jesus Himself said that scripture is that which points to Him. He walked the disciples through how they do. It was important to Jesus but not to Andy Stanley.

I'm going with "shock value."

 

[Iconoclast]

Anyone who thinks he can unhitch from the OT. Certainly cannot begin to understand the NT.
People often listen to storyteller kinds of people like him rather than a God called preacher.

 

[Reynolds]

"The Christian faith doesn't rise and fall on the accuracy of 66 ancient documents. It rises and falls on the
identity of a single individual: Jesus of Nazareth."

Andy Stanley


Sometimes I don't know if he just says things for shock value or if he is this ignorant. One wouldn't think he would be involved in either. We cannot know who Jesus is unless we get it from scripture first. I am not discounting seeing God move in our lives and in the lives of others but even Jesus Himself said that scripture is that which points to Him. He walked the disciples through how they do. It was important to Jesus but not to Andy Stanley.

He is a straight up liberal. If you look at him with that fact in mind, he is easy to figure out.
He does not preach sermons. He has "talks.".
His life mission has been to be rebellious and show that he is NOT Charles Stanley.

 

[JonC]

I'm going with "shock value."

Stanley explained his meaning. This is a resurrected topic.

These topics always come back once people forgot why it was invalid initially (I can't remember Stanley's explanation).

Doesn't matter because a couple here judging the servant of Another are not too keen on actual Scripture anyway.

 

[Reynolds]

Stanley explained his meaning. This is a resurrected topic.

These topics always come back once people forgot why it was invalid initially (I can't remember Stanley's explanation).

Doesn't matter because a couple here judging the servant of Another are not too keen on actual Scripture anyway.

His explanations are always lacking. I used to listen to his "talks" every week. Over last several years, his liberalism became obvious

 

[JonC]

His explanations are always lacking. I used to listen to his "talks" every week. Over last several years, his liberalism became obvious

I've never listened to him. I vaguely remember his explanation (from a discussion on the BB).

From what I have read about him he seems to try to teach controversially.

My mom liked Charles Stanley. For some reason he always reminded me of Ichabod Crane from the Sleroy Hollow cartoon.

 

[Reynolds]

I've never listened to him. I vaguely remember his explanation (from a discussion on the BB).

From what I have read about him he seems to try to teach controversially.

My mom liked Charles Stanley. For some reason he always reminded me of Ichabod Crane from the Sleroy Hollow cartoon.

Andy and Charles did not get along, at all, until recently.

 

[JonC]

Andy and Charles did not get along, at all, until recently.

I remember when Charles Stanley put his son under church discipline. But I don't know much about them.

From what I have heard of Charles Stanley, I would not object to his preaching.

 

[JonC]

Reading the actual sermon, the OP dies seem o be taking some liberties by extracting that quote. His ultimate point is we is not believe Luke because it is a Bible story but because it is a testimony about Jesus written before the accounts were collected.

While I woukd not have worded it as Stanley did (he should have known his sermon would have been picked apart for ridicule), the actual sermon is really not that controversial.

Here is the sermon:

Andy Stanley - Somebody Had To Tell It » Watch 2022 online sermons

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no legitimate reason to say something like that. There is no context that will make it ok. It is a troubling statement regardless of any context.

 

[Reynolds]

I remember when Charles Stanley put his son under church discipline. But I don't know much about them.

From what I have heard of Charles Stanley, I would not object to his preaching.

Charles is doctrinally sound. One of the fathers of the Conservative Resurgence in SBC.
I don't remember Charles putting Andy under Church discipline. The biggest thing I can remember is Charles basically disowning Andy because he thought Andy was trying to take his job. Both tell an entirely different story as to what happened. Truth probably somewhere in the middle.
From what I gathered, Andy tried to be anything but Charles, and rebelled against Charles because he viewed Charles as a hypocrite because of the divorce.

 

[Revmitchell]

Charles is doctrinally sound. One of the fathers of the Conservative Resurgence in SBC.
I don't remember Charles putting Andy under Church discipline. The biggest thing I can remember is Charles basically disowning Andy because he thought Andy was trying to take his job. Both tell an entirely different story as to what happened. Truth probably somewhere in the middle.
From what I gathered, Andy tried to be anything but Charles, and rebelled against Charles because he viewed Charles as a hypocrite because of the divorce.

Stanley has an odd view on the Millennium. He believes that unfaithful Christians will live in outer darkness until its over.

 

[JonC]

Charles is doctrinally sound. One of the fathers of the Conservative Resurgence in SBC.
I don't remember Charles putting Andy under Church discipline. The biggest thing I can remember is Charles basically disowning Andy because he thought Andy was trying to take his job. Both tell an entirely different story as to what happened. Truth probably somewhere in the middle.
From what I gathered, Andy tried to be anything but Charles, and rebelled against Charles because he viewed Charles as a hypocrite because of the divorce.

I was wrong. I was thinking about John Piper.

I guess it would be hard for Andy, growing up in his father's shadow. I just don't know much about him.

 

[Reynolds]

Stanley has an odd view on the Millennium. He believes that unfaithful Christians will live in outer darkness until its over.

Never heard that. It is definitely odd.

 

[JonC]

There is no legitimate reason to say something like that. There is no context that will make it ok. It is a troubling statement regardless of any context.

I disagree. He is right that our faith is dependent on Christ. I think he pushes it to the point of minimalizing Scripture - but in the sermon in question he makes the distinction between 66 books combined 300 years after Christ's resurrection and each book.

Anytime we look at context we need to look at what is actually being said. It appears he was trying to be controversial, but he is correct that Luke was Scripture long before there were 66 books in the Bible.

What gives Scripture its authority (for those of us who view Scripture as perfect and complete....all 66 books) is not the combination into a single volume, or a title, but the fact each of these books are "God breathed".

 

[JonC]

There is no legitimate reason to say something like that. There is no context that will make it ok. It is a troubling statement regardless of any context.

I disagree. He is right that our faith is dependent on Christ. I think he pushes it to the point of minimalizing Scripture - but in the sermon in question he makes the distinction between 66 books combined 300 years after Christ's resurrection and each book.

Anytime we look at context we need to look at what is actually being said. It appears he was trying to be controversial, but he is correct that Luke was Scripture long before there were 66 books in the Bible.

Christianity was no less Christianity prior to Luke being written.

What gives Scripture its authority (for those of us who view Scripture as perfect and complete....all 66 books...."what is written") is not the combination into a single volume, or a title, but the fact each of these books are "God breathed".

 

[Reynolds]

I disagree. He is right that our faith is dependent on Christ. I think he pushes it to the point of minimalizing Scripture - but in the sermon in question he makes the distinction between 66 books combined 300 years after Christ's resurrection and each book.

Anytime we look at context we need to look at what is actually being said. It appears he was trying to be controversial, but he is correct that Luke was Scripture long before there were 66 books in the Bible.

What gives Scripture its authority (for those of us who view Scripture as perfect and complete....all 66 books) is not the combination into a single volume, or a title, but the fact each of these books are "God breathed".

Andy does the damage than qualifies it with a footnote. He conveys a non truth, then later tries to subtly qualify it.
My Cousin's family goes to his church. The reason they like it is because they can go in Sunday morning hung over and not get conviction from his sermon, I mean "talk".

 

[JonC]

Andy does the damage than qualifies it with a footnote. He conveys a non truth, then later tries to subtly qualify it.
My Cousin's family goes to his church. The reason they like it is because they can go in Sunday morning hung over and not get conviction from his sermon, I mean "talk".

Maybe. Not in that sermon, but I seem to remember something else he said that was controversial (can't remember what it was).

 

[Revmitchell]

Andy does the damage than qualifies it with a footnote. He conveys a non truth, then later tries to subtly qualify it.
My Cousin's family goes to his church. The reason they like it is because they can go in Sunday morning hung over and not get conviction from his sermon, I mean "talk".

He does great damage to Christianity. Not that He can stop it but that his influence with such errant words is no small thing. We, cannot know God without these 66 Books. It is the very thing God set up to reveal Himself and it is the very power to salvation.