During the Spring of last year, I was approached by people regarding the teaching of Andy Stanley in a series called Aftermath. In listening to the teaching, I discovered Andy’s “Big Idea” was that the resurrection of Jesus should be our primary thrust (not the truth or reliability of the entire Bible) in presenting the faith to non-believers. Andy’s rationale was grounded in the belief that this is what the early church did and it was this singular focus that made Christ Irresistible.
Although Andy’s thesis was met with criticism, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt when he said that the reason for the criticism he was receiving was due to his style (not using notes) or posing third-person questions that may lead some to assume he supports a view or that people must listen to the entire series and not just one message if they were to truly understand what He was trying to say. Understood. Being a teacher of the Bible for some 30 years, I have had many moments in which I could have been more precise in my use of specific terms or more broad-based concepts.
So I listened…
Straw 1
Andy explained what he thought the problem was early in the first message of the series:
“Over time, the idea of Sola Scriptura, which is … you know, Scripture alone is the authority, has been taken to mean that the Scripture or in our case we would say, the Bible, is actually the foundation of our faith.There is a difference between something that is seen as an authority for you to live by and something that is considered the foundation of your faith or your faith system. But over time these two ideas have merged. It’s nobody’s fault. It’s just the way the world is. It’s just the way church leaders began talking about the Bible. So many of you … I’m in this group, we were raised to believe that the foundation of our faith was the Bible. That as the Bible goes, so goes our faith and if all of it is not true then none of it can be trusted. It’s a house of cards.”
Andy went on to urge Northpoint Church (and its various satellites campuses) — and presumably all churches (“Stand Alone,” 8:14):
“…to step back on a more solid foundation as it relates to faith … because, you know, if Genesis isn’t true well then, the Bible isn’t true. If all of it isn’t true, then you can’t say the Bible’s true and if the Bible’s not true then why would I depend on it and why would I look to it as a source of faith or really as a source of anything.”
Q. Does Andy believe that there are parts of the Bible that are not true? Possibly Genesis? Others? It would seem that Andy’s confidence in the truth-claims of the Bible has lessened but he never tells us why or how or in what areas of the Bible he has become skeptical.
Andy’s concern was that people today have easy access to the internet and can discover all sorts of attacks that people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have levied against the Bible. To end the first message in the series, Andy comes to the startling conclusion (“Stand Alone,” 36:21):
“They [referring to Harris and Dawkins] have attacked persuasively and effectively the credibility and the morality of our Bibles. If the foundation of your faith is an absolutely true book, good luck with that against this kind of onslaught.”
Q. What are the credible arguments that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have uncovered? Does Andy believe both Harris and Dawkins have found something that undermines the Bible? It would seem so.
Q. What are the arguments that these men have made that effectively call into question the morality of the Bible? Are there instances in which the teaching(s) of the Bible is immoral? Again, it would seem so since Andy’s words give that clear impression. However, Andy never tells us how or where in the Bible that these fault lines can be found. The impression is that the “new atheists” have arguments and points of view that have convinced Andy that the Bible has legitimately (not merely in the eyes of culture) lost its footing as being on any type of moral high ground.
Q. In what ways is the Bible not an “absolutely true book?” In the textual variants? Original manuscripts? Lack of being inspired by God at all? What does Andy believe that we should know?
Straw 2
Regardless, I was wanting to explore what Andy was trying to say. In the second message, Andy said (“Mix n’ Match,” 5:22, 5:35):
“It was very difficult for the early church [given their Jewish upbringing] to break away from the Law and the Prophets, Old Covenant, Old Testament thinking, again, just basically because of how they were raised but, and here’s why we are talking about this, eventually they did break away from it … eventually they did break some of those habits and eventually many of us need to break similar habits as well.”
Andy’s teaching that the early church broke away from Old Testament was concerning given the reliance the early church leaders placed on quoting from the Old Testament. If the early church broke away from the Old Testament, then why are there 278 different Old Testament verses cited in the New Testament: 94 from the Pentateuch, 99 from the Prophets, and 85 from the Writings? Out of the 22 books in the Old Testament only six (Judges-Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles) are not explicitly referred to in the New Testament. Why would the Church that is seeking to “break away” go to such great lengths to find its authority for teaching New Covenant truths within Old Covenant subject matter?
As a matter of fact, Paul told Timothy to use the Old Testament Law (see I Timothy 1:8-11) to surface the fact that we are all sinners in need of the forgiveness offered by Christ in the Gospel. Paul went on the say that:
“All Scripture [a.k.a. Old Testament] is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16).”
Peter told the Christians scattered all over the known world that the Old Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that the basis for his hope was found in the truths first expressed in the Old Testament and now confirmed in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, Peter never cites the resurrection alone as the basis of his hope when he could have easily done so (see 2 Peter 1:16-21). Peter declared that the foundation for his hope was, first, Jesus’ identity when he saw Him glorified on the Mount of Transfiguration along with God’s verbal affirmation of His beloved Son (c.f. Mark 9:2-8) and, second, the message of the prophets in the Old Testament — the prophetic word more fully confirmed (2 Pet 1:19). Peter is, in effect, saying, “If you don’t believe me, go to the Old Testament Scriptures to find the basis for why you should trust Jesus.” While there can be no doubt that the resurrection was part of Peter’s faith, it is simply not accurate to even imply that it was the only basis for his faith given what Peter himself said.
Q. If what Andy says is true – that Peter and the early church abandoned any defense of the Old Testament (as the role play of Andy being asked questions by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins so clearly portrays in “Stand Alone,” 33:20-40:13), why doesn’t Peter ever teach this? Why does Peter specifically and expressly teach the opposite to Christians who are facing an “onslaught” of persecution? In other words, when Peter could teach what Andy is telling us he would teach today; Peter not only doesn’t point to the resurrection at all, he actually counsels Christians being persecuted to have confidence because his experience (on the Mount of Transfiguration) confirms the identity of Jesus as communicated by the prophets that are recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures. The teaching that Andy presents to Northpoint Church is the exact opposite of what Peter teaches – to jettison any form of appealing to Old Testament Scriptures.
Again, in Andy’s teaching, the resurrection is Peter’s “Irresistible” message to the world, period. However, the “Irresistible” message given by Peter Himself was that the truths in the Old Testament confirm the identity of Jesus as being The Christ of God who had come to take away the sins of the world. In other words, Peter wanted the Christians facing persecution to have an unsalable confidence that they are not suffering in vain. How? Because faith in Jesus as the Christ conformed to the prophetic word regarding the identity of the coming Messiah as outlined in the Old Testament. Do you see the problem? The issue is clear: Either the Apostle Peter is wrong or Pastor Andy is wrong.
Straw 3
The final “straw” was when Andy said in the third message (“Not Difficult,” 4:58):
“Two episodes ago … we discovered that when the church launched that the foundation of the faith of the early Christians was not a book — they didn’t have one, it wasn’t the Bible — there wasn’t one, it wasn’t the Old Covenant or what we call the Old Testament or what they called the Law and the Prophets, um because that (unintelligible) … didn’t tell the story of Jesus … the foundation of the faith for the early church was an event, it was the resurrection of Jesus.”
There is only one gigantic problem with Andy’s statement, Jesus explicitly taught that the writings of Moses and the Prophets all pointed to and centered on revealing Him!
And He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luke 24:25-27).
In other words, Jesus wanted people to see the unfolding of the New Covenant in and through the Old Covenant. Stated another way, Andy disagrees with Jesus.
Unanswered Questions
To be clear, I listened to all three parts of Andy’s series, Aftermath as well as the prior series (90) in order to get a landscape view of Andy’s teaching. After listening to the series, I contacted Northpoint Church multiple times in order to get clarification, something that Andy had requested publicly for pastors to do. After being unable to secure a reply from Andy, I wrote an Open Letter to Andy in order to foster healthy dialogue. I was graciously sent a copy of his newest book, Irresistible. I was assured that after reading Andy’s book, I would find the answers to my questions.
Unfortunately, not only were my original questions not answered, the content of the book actually alarmed me on a completely new level. To be clear, I am not interested in minor differences in emphasis, expressions or style. All of the differences I have cited thus far are issues of right or wrong, truth or error. While the book does address legitimate distinctions between how we apply the Old and New Covenants, those helpful truths are lost in the wake of three profound problems in Andy’s approach to this issue and the ministry of Northpoint Church in general.
Problem 1
Does Andy really think “Nones” or people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins will be brought around to seriously consider Christianity if we merely lop-off the authority of the Old Testament? Does seeking to disarm critics by dismembering Biblical truth strike you as foolish? This seems to be a case of which is worse, the disease or the cure? Do the elders of Northpoint Church really want to endorse the strategy of abandoning the historicity and God-breathed authority of the entire Bible, thinking that our only real and abiding apologetical hope is the resurrection?
Think of the pastoral implications of this position. What about that Christian teen craving to know God but who can’t be sure which part of the Bible is really credible? What about that single mom wanting to raise her kids on a firm moral footing? If the morality of the Bible is being questioned (or at least going undefended by Pastor Andy), on what basis will she have any confidence? What about the Christian student who actually believes what the Bible teaches about creation – that God spoke everything into existence? Should that student now look at the creation story in Genesis as being no more literal than Dr. Seuss’s, Cat in the Hat? It is staggering to think how wrong-headed Andy’s approach is from a pastoral point of view. The error of Andy’s position poses a real danger for the people who look to Northpoint Church for pastoral leadership. By the way, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are no more interested in the resurrection than they are in any other part of the Bible. Surrendering the authority of the Bible in the hope that this will somehow silence or even possibly awaken the critics to Christ is not merely wrong, it is sheer madness. Is the real issue that Andy has come to believe that the Old Testament is indefensible and has now projected his personal beliefs onto the Bible? We will only know if/when he answers these types of questions.
Problem 2
If Northpoint Church is as concerned about the next generation’s confidence in the Old Testament as was conveyed in the series, then why not do a series of teachings on why the Bible can be trusted? Why not tackle the tough issues of a literal Adam and Eve? Why not wrestle through the challenges of Israel being commanded to wipe out the Canaanites? Why not engage on the issues that seemingly undermine the credibility of the Old Testament? If it is true that there is an “onslaught” occurring against Christianity by intellectual elitists, why not address those challenges with courage on the basis of the belief that the Bible truly is authoritative? There are only two possible answers: laziness or the elders at Northpoint do not believe the Bible to be God’s inerrant Word. In other words, could it be that the elders at Northpoint Church don’t believe the Bible is defensible?
Andy certainly doesn’t seem to think so (Irresistible, page 290):
“Our faith does not teeter on the brink of collapse based on the historicity, credibility, or even the believability of the Old Testament. When skeptics point out the violence, the misogyny, the scientific and historically unverifiable claims of the Hebrew Bible, instead of trying to defend those things, we can shrug, give ’em our best confused look, and say, “I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up. My Christian faith is not based on any of that.”
Really? Is that the advice Peter gave to the Christ-followers who were being persecuted when he wrote (I Peter 3:15):
“…in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
It is such a contradiction to say you want to reach the next generation while at the same time you are embarrassed to defend the book that supplies the hope of the Gospel to that next generation … unless of course you don’t believe the Bible to defensible.
Problem 3
The very concept of Andy’s book, Irresistible, has two irreparable fallacies. The first is stated on the cover of the book:
“Once upon a time there existed a version of our faith that was Irresistible … Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World.”
It’s as if the church had forgotten the Gospel and, at long last, the truth of Andy’s book will rescue us from our error in believing that the content of our faith should be derived from the entire Bible. I find the hubris in that title to be breathtaking. Good marketing? Yes. Good truth? No. It’s as if Andy is a modern day Joseph Smith restoring to the church the true compass of Christianity lost long ago in the wake of the ill-guided efforts of the Reformation. Really?
The second fallacy is the notion that a well-crafted apologetic (or non-apologetic in Andy’s view) will somehow win the day with an unbeliever or rescue a spiritual “drop-out” on the mere avoidance of endorsing the entire Bible. However, there is no amount of message-craft that will win an atheist without the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, there are many examples during the life of Jesus in which people refused to follow Jesus and He let them go. Why? Because they refused to accept His message and they would not yield to His Lordship. If the people found Jesus so irresistible, why did they crucify Him? The best argument, on the best day, presented in the best possible way is still not powerful enough to rescue a person dead in sin. Only the power of the Holy Spirit can bring the spiritually dead to spiritual life. From Andy’s book, it would seem that the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit is not only absent, but wholly not required. The truth is that the message of the Gospel infused by the power of the Holy Spirit is the only thing that can make Jesus irresistible.
If your head is spinning, I get it. My head is spinning too in trying to understand how someone so seemingly gifted in communication could be so wrong on a subject matter that could not be more clear. If you are not sure who to believe, don’t just believe a person because he is called “pastor” or has a large church. Search the Scriptures for yourself! I am hopeful that both Andy and I would agree on that.
I listened to several of Andy’s messages and kept waiting for him to clarify the parts that weren’t scriptural. He never did. It seems he has no desire to clarify his statements. I have to conclude its a “Joseph Smith” situation all the way.
I hope and pray that this is not so… However, Andy has the ability to make my/our hope a reality. If Andy does not clarify what he was trying to say, it reveals that he either agrees with what he taught or doesn’t care about what people think.
It’s always amazing how quickly people are able to point out the “errors” of those in leadership. Especially, if that leaders views differ from thiers. Question…Is Andy Stanley pointing people toward Jesus? I’m reminded of those driving out demons in Jesus name but wasn’t a part of the disciples inner core. The disciples wanted to stop them too. Jesus said don’t do that. Jesus went on to say… those who aren’t against us are for us.
It’s important for sound doctrine to be preached or the people will be confused. Preachers should be willing to back up their preaching with scripture, especially when broadcasting it far and wide. It’s not hard.
I grew up in a very conservative church, have a bachelors in theology and i can tell you that as culture changes, theology changes. People have used the bible to convince generations that things like movies, card playing, etc; were sinful. We aren’t too far removed from people using the bible to condone slavery. Divorced people were ostracised from church membership and could never be considered for any leadership or teaching positions within the church…again, all these positions were “biblically” based and you would be hard pressed to find any church that would hold to those same cultural stigmas as they once did. My point is that even if Andy decides to come out with a treatise to back his position, what does it really prove to you? It’s very refreshing to see pastors like Andy finally understanding and embracing the significance of the cultural challenges of which the bible is steeped.
Slavery, sexual immorality, abortion etc are all cultural bags of issues that are contrary to to the word of God which was given for our benefit and stands forever. If you lose your moorings in the word of God, to what would you turn?
Jesus used scripture, the disciples used scripture, so if preachers use scripture it proves they are in the same fold. If they don’t, we are left wondering.
Slavery was not contrary to the bible, it was condoned. Even in the NT. The only stipulation was how the owners treated them. I don’t feel like Andy has lost his moorings, quite the contrary. I believe the church has held onto out of date cultural beliefs for too long and has lost touch with reason. Orthodoxy is not a replacement for truth, regardless of whom it offends or what lines it crosses
Excellent article Dan. What guidance would you suggest to help us lovingly engage our neighbors who attend Northpoint? I want to lovingly “contend“ for our faith, as I am concerned that many of my neighbors maybe those who say “Lord Lord” in the last days.
I would advise those who have neighbors or friends who attend Northpoint Church to seek answers to the questions I pose in this blog from the elders of Northpoint. Again, this is not about a differing viewpoint or even style of leadership, it is about right vs. wrong, truth vs. error. I believe Andy makes some very good points on various distinctions between the Old and New Covenant, points that should be surfaced in order for a church to be healthy. However, Andy’s remedy is akin to malpractice. As long as those people who attend Northpoint Church do not seek clarification, the elders of Northpoint Church (to whom Andy is, presumably, accountable to) won’t need to exert their pastoral duty in leading Jesus’ Church (I Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9). When the issues in Andy’s teaching were first raised, I believed it was simply an error (albeit a gross error) in teaching. I really believed that it would be settled with a clarifying statement by Andy. However, the longer these issues continue without some type of specific and comprehensive statement that focuses on the subjects I (and others) have raised, the more I am inclined to believe that this is what Andy and the other pastors of Northpoint truly believe. I am not talking about releasing another statement blaming the people who “misheard” Andy or some “style of communication” or issuing a statement that “our people understood what I was trying to say.” If words have meaning (and they do) then Andy and the elders of Northpoint must either clarify what Andy meant to say (preferable through Andy) or they endorse everything Andy has taught in the Aftermath messages and in his book. The bottom line is this:
Jesus is the founder of the church and appoints leadership to lead it under His Lordship. When the truth of Jesus’ Lordship in part or in whole is minimized, people will suffer and the witness of Christ on this earth will fade.
We have an epidemic in the modern Western church of “idolozing” celebrity pastors. We take their word as God’s Word. It is the Protestant version of Papal encyclicals.
The church has accepted this form of “apologetics,” because the church already has accepted faulty version (theology)of evangelism. The church has been told for many years that all you have to do is invite your friend to church and then the pastor will do the rest. Now that the congregation has lost its ability to be salt and light, and ineffective in evangelism they have become ineffective in apologetics for lack of true discipleship.
So if the church is ineffective in evangelism, we trust the paid professionals to do it, pastors and evangelists. If the church is ineffective in apologetics, we should just stop doing it, point to the Resurrection, and leave apologetics up to the professionals, like Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler.
When you lack true discipleship, we find evangelism and apologetics to be the first to go. This leads to an ineffective church. An ineffective church leads to a complacent church, and a complacent church leads to a liberal heretical “church.”
We need godly men and women to train and disciple others through God’s inerrent infallible Word, or the liberalism that swept Europe pre- WWII will continue to ravage the American church.
Brother Dan,
This is a very well written defense of your biblical-based review of Charles Stanley son. One of the big questions I have is why hasn’t his father Charles called him out on this stuff? Charles is on the bott network every day and yet-crickets. Is this some family enterprise involved in the merchandising of Jesus? Are these people hirelings or do they truly care about the faith? Now I hear that Andy Stanley is getting into New Age based enneagrams on this weeks prophecy update by John Haller on YouTube. What’s next for him? Bethel church-based Christian tarot cards?
JD, I have no knowledge of how involved Charles is given his age (86) nor do I understand Andy’s motivation other than what he says. I think Andy truly believes that he has discovered a new bulletproof apologetic by letting go of controversial aspects of Christianity. However, Andy doesn’t seem to realize that following Jesus in both His character and priorities is always controversial. It just seems like Andy has set his sights on a type of Christianity that Jesus wouldn’t even recognize. I don’t say that to be demeaning or disrespectful. I want Andy to succeed. I totally agree with much of what Andy says regarding our obligation to the Mosaic Covenant given that Jesus fulfilled that Covenant. However, the Mosaic Covenant has huge value for us to get a glimpse into the holy character of God and the nature of Jesus atonement on our behalf. The thing that troubles me about Andy’s teaching is that he communicates things that are explicitly opposed by Jesus, Peter and Paul. I went to great lengths to both cite these items and ask for his clarification via private email for months. I would love to discover Andy’s thoughts on the legitimate and crystal clear questions I have raised. I would very much like to be proven wrong and chalk this up to sloppy communication or apologetic overreach due to a noble desire to reach people with the Gospel. But on the other hand, for a person who works tirelessly to be clear in both video and verbal media, the silence from Andy is communicating volumes.
In considering the new covenant and the old covenant, it seems to me there are two major places a person can wind up in error-
1. Trying to use the law as a device to secure salvation, and
2. Ignoring the law so that grace may abound.
I’d say the folks in Andy’s congregation mostly fall into group 2. If a federal holiday coincides with a Sunday, its not uncommon for them to take the Sunday off from worship. It doesn’t appear they are concerned about using the law to appropriate their own salvation or for much else. This group needs the law big time. In implying that the OT is sort of optional reading, Andy is harming these people in my opinion because they will not be ready to discern what pleases God.
On the other hand, there are some hard shell Christian churches that are so zealous about rules (e.g. the KJV is the only bible that counts), they aren’t easy to be around and they might be grieving the Spirit by diminishing what Jesus did for us. This group needs a “grace heavy” message.
When we walk with the Spirit in obedience to Gods commands, we find the freedom to live as God intended us to live.
I would not know about Northpoint Church as a whole given I don’t attend. However, it is true that an unhealthy church will find itself either at the “Only Law” or the “All grace” end of the spectrum. Either of these ends is the eventual outcome of an unhealthy church, a church without a Biblically based theology and methodology.
Mark, thanks for helping us all think more precisely via your input. Regarding your comment:
“It’s always amazing how quickly people are able to point out the “errors” of those in leadership. Especially, if that leaders views differ from theirs. Question…Is Andy Stanley pointing people toward Jesus? I’m reminded of those driving out demons in Jesus name but wasn’t a part of the disciples inner core. The disciples wanted to stop them too. Jesus said don’t do that. Jesus went on to say… those who aren’t against us are for us.”
I think it would be helpful to answer your concern by answering your comment (bold) in three responses.
Regarding the first part of your response:
“It’s always amazing how quickly people are able to point out the “errors” of those in leadership. Especially, if that leaders views differ from theirs.”
The “errors” that I sought to engage with Andy, speak specifically to whether or not the Bible is our final authority. For Andy to teach that the Old Testament doesn’t tell the story of Jesus or that New Testament Church sought to move away or “unhitch” itself from the Old Testament is an enormous claim that demands examination in light of what the Scriptures communicate. Upon examining what Jesus, Peter and Paul all taught, I proposed that they would all disagree with specific statements that Andy made/taught. Why are you indicating that I am the one in the wrong for providing clear evidence that there are “errors” in Andy’s teaching? I am confident that you would never affirm that Andy is infallible. Have you examined the citations I provided from Andy? Have you searched the passages I cited? Have you compared the two? Do you have an alternative interpretation that we should consider? Be careful that your admiration for Andy does not cloud the clear teaching of the Bible on these issues. Again, these are not tangential subjects but fundamental to whether or not we hold the Bible as the ultimate authority. I am not interested in making sure Andy believes what I believe. I am, however, immensely interested in any person who claims to pastor the people of Jesus to do so with both integrity and accuracy.
“Is Andy Stanley pointing people toward Jesus?”
Which Jesus? The Jesus of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? The Jesus of Islam? The Jesus of The Jehovah Witnesses? I am not being cute or belittle your statement. I am making the point that we only point people to Jesus when we accurately represent the life and teaching of Jesus according to what the Bible says. In each of the above mentioned belief systems, they all would support “pointing people toward Jesus” but the Jesus they teach is not supported in the Bible. I am NOT saying Andy’s teaching is akin to the heresies mentioned above, I am merely trying to provide examples in which the statement you make is not sufficient to dismiss the concerns I cited.
“I’m reminded of those driving out demons in Jesus name but wasn’t a part of the disciples inner core. The disciples wanted to stop them too. Jesus said don’t do that. Jesus went on to say… those who aren’t against us are for us.”
The situation you cite is found in Mark 9:38-41 and I don’t believe directly applies to this context for at least three reasons:
(1. the disciples didn’t believe anyone else should perform the same functions they were since they were the only disciples commissioned by Christ to act on Christ’s behalf. The position the disciples took was based on their limited understanding of the master/disciple relationship. I am not proposing anything of the sort.
(2. The disciples are trying to stop a clear example of Jesus’ mission – to manifest the Kingdom of God on earth (Mark 1:15). The mission of Jesus would obviously result in the expulsion of demons in people as the Kingdom was manifest as a sign of His legitimacy via “in Jesus name.” Again, my critique of Andy is not in violation of Christ’s expressed mission. To the contrary, my argument is that Andy is misrepresenting Christ which will necessarily result in a hinderance of the mission of Christ being represented in both His church and in this world if not corrected.
(3. The issue that Jesus is clarifying with the disciples is that those who represent Him accurately even though they are not in their official group should not be opposed. I do not fit this citation given I do not oppose Christ. However, let’s imagine that the man expelling demons was also teaching that the Old Testament doesn’t speak of a coming Messiah or that there is no such thing as sin. Would Jesus support the disciples opposing him on that basis? I think we can both agree that He would.
Mark, I was and I am still hopeful that Andy must have just misspoke during his teaching. This is why I took the time to listen to each teaching in Aftermath and the entire previous series, “90.” I didn’t want to misrepresent or misdiagnose the issue. Additionally, this is why I emailed Andy privately and asked for a clarification. However, Andy has not only chose to not respond to my questions/concerns, but he has also stated on multiple occasions that of the pastors within the evangelical community only John Piper has reached out to him in seeking to dialogue on this issue. Andy’s statement is simply not true as documented in my previous writings.
If you would like to meet and talk more, please let me know. I will buy the coffee.
Hi Dan.
1. For you to say that you have provided “clear” evidence of errors in Andy’s teaching is akin to me calling myself Superman. What you provided was your theological opinion based out of your biased fundamentalism.
2. As far as me having admiration for Andy Stanley, I do not have a dog in this hunt. I have listened to some of his sermons and have read a couple of his books. I am merely a seeker of Truth. My judgment is not clouded.
3. I do not believe the Bible has to be inerrant or the last word of authority in my life as a Christian and in my pursuit to know and understand a loving God. The Bible was a book compiled by many men and has gone through numerous revisions not to mention the social and cultural climate that it was prevalent when it was combined into the Canon we have today. The Bible is literature and should be read as such. Not meant to be literal in every sense of the word.
4. Your reference to which Jesus Andy Stanley might be pointing people toward is your biggest swing-and-miss yet… a straw man argument. I do not believe that Andy would be pointing anybody toward any other Jesus than the one we know from the scriptures. For you to suggest that all other religious groups are wrong and you are interpretations are right makes you an elitist which brings me to point five.
5. Jesus was not suggesting at all that he be represented accurately in Mark. That’s self imposed interpretation. He was dealing with religious elitists who feel their way is the only right way while others are wrong…hmmm sounds familiar…
Thoughts?
God is able to keep His word intact through the millennia. He became a man, died and rose from the dead. Mark are you saying He can do that but not keep His word from being adulterated?
Where Origen, Tertullian, Luther, Wesley and others failed, Stanley has now seen clearly- lop off the entire OT and look to culture for how to live?
Isn’t it more plausible to say many people just want to do what they want, the Bible is a hindrance to them, so they must discredit the Bible to feel better about their sideways issue with the Lord?
I believe all things are possible. I just don’t think God superseded the hearts and minds of the writers of scripture to write an error free book not to mention all the agendas of the men of all the councils who determined which books got in.
The authors were definitely influenced by God & i believe the bible to be full of reliable wisdom, but not error free. And that’s ok with me. I believe this was Andy’s point. My faith is not determined nor does it stand on the inerrancy of scripture. In a lot of cases churches/Christians are bordering on bibliolotry.
Is your faith built upon the bible being infallible or upon the works & person of jesus?
Ok.
Mark, I must say your first point threw me off a bit: “For you to say that you have provided “clear” evidence of errors in Andy’s teaching is akin to me calling myself Superman. What you provided was your theological opinion based out of your biased fundamentalism.”
Given this, I assume you believe Andy is correct when he taught (third message of the Aftermath series – “Not Difficult,” at 4:58), that the Old Testament doesn’t tell the story of Jesus?
Mark, just one question: did you read the original blog in which I cite Andy’s teaching (his words) from which these replies originated?
Indeed.
Hey Dan, do you wish to continue our dialogue?
Yes. I would like to if you are interested. To simplify and streamline the discourse, I would like to examine specific things Andy taught and compare those things with what the authors of the New Testament taught.
Agreed?
Do I love God or His words? Yes I do.
I have no beef with Stanley, but when anyone calls into question the Word of God (and this seems to be in vogue a lot lately) it sounds like a re articulation of the ancient lie of Gen 3:1 – “did God really say…”
It’s the oldest trick in the book so I’m going to point it out when I see it.
If anyone chooses to do God’s will he’ll know if the words are from God or not
Hey Steve
So if even a small portion of the bible isn’t true/accurate your entire belief system crumbles?
Also, in your final statement you state that anyone who chooses to do the will of God will know if the words are from God or not…translated means that those who may not hold to inerrancy and yet still love God are not or cannot know or do his will?
What started this was Andy’s statement that parts of the OT were “indefensible.” But he wouldn’t say which parts were indefensible and went on to describe how intimidated he was of notorious atheists like Dawkins. Maybe you can get Andy to say which parts he thinks have errors and we can continue our talk.
The other part is John 7:17 which I believe means that if you aren’t interested in a relationship with God, He won’t give you the ability to understand His word.
Well, sorry you feel that way Steve. I do have a desire to know God and I’ve studied the bible for years. I didn’t mean to upset you. I thought we were mutually respectfully dialoguing.
Later.
I’m good but I’m still no further along in understanding the statements Andy made. Find out what scripture in the OT Andy was referencing and come back. Thanks
I doubt that will be possible until he clarifies.
I believe there is a foreshadowing of Jesus in the ot. But i really do not believe that’s what Andy was saying. I feel you have jumped to many conclusions, even though you continually tried to say you weren’t. You have been judge and jury all the while giving disclaimers that you werent trying to judge him. I believe the intent of Mr Stanley was to throw off the religious system of the ot which was full of erroneous ideas and for the church to assume the role Jesus intended all along. There was nothing of the old covenant that made it attractive to those outside. In fact it could be argued that the hebrews cared little for those outside of thier circle. Jesus changed all that.
What no one seems to want to answer is how does it affect your faith if we throw off the ot entirely?
Mark, I would like to try and focus on what Andy taught and not what he might have intended to teach given neither of us can know his intent. I will fully embrace that Andy might have misspoken but only Andy can tell us that. So, again, do you believe that Andy was correct when he said that the Old Testament doesn’t tell us the story of Jesus?
Hard to say if we can’t understand his intent. Again, i say the ot gives us a foreshadowing of jesus.
To be clear i do not believe he simply misspoke. I believe he had serious doubts about the ot. That’s just my opinion. But that’s ok with me. It changes nothing.
It seems that Jesus believed the Old Testament told His story when he tells the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection:
“And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?””And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:25-27).
Given what Jesus said: Do you believe Andy was in error when He taught that the Old Testament doesn’t tell the story of Jesus?
How does throwing off one blade in a pair of scissors affect its operation is what you are asking. The scissors don’t work. Why would you want the grace if you don’t know you need it? The OT shows us that we need grace but the NT grace isn’t offered to the unrepentant. The problem with what Andy is doing is that some will likely conclude, based on his preaching, that their depravity is ok because the OT isn’t relevant and Jesus will forgive them no matter how they live. That is unsound doctrine.
I disagree Steve. Unlike a pair of scissors the nt can stand alone. Also, are you saying the entire purpose of the ot was to reveal the depravity of man??
The NT contradicts your statement.
Jesus is the the fulfillment of the law. Jesus himself viewed the OT as scripture and used it and verified it as such regularly. Jesus also said straight out that Moses wrote about Him. When Jesus comes back as judge, the OT is gonna be the standard applied to the unrepentant
I get that Steve. It’s a very learned systematic theological response from your fundamentalist bias. Please answer me this, how many other rwliguons have you studied?
I just don’t want you or others to have an uncomfortable conversation with the the Lord that involves an admission that you really didn’t think the Lord was serious about the 10 commandments
I understand that. However you still haven’t answered my question.
I’ve studied other religions but the “New Testament only” religion is a new one. How do you know the New Testament isn’t just “great literature” like you think the OT is?
In the “New Testament Only” religion, does “sin” have applicability? How would a person know if his behavior was pleasing to God? Would the NT have to be redacted for the references to the OT? After all, if the NT stands alone to keep your faith from crumbling, it cant be tainted by lesser material, now can it?
You’ll have to have answers for these questions to get traction for your new religion.
Hey Steve,
1. Is not my faith that crumbles, regardless. Can you say that?
2. Of course sin it’s applicable in the nt. I believe jesus addressed that issue.
It appears your faith has already crumbled as evidenced by your unwillingness to believe what Jesus believes which is that all scripture is God breathed. Jesus is God. Jesus breathed it. Why would you want to believe something other than what Jesus believes?
Hey Steve, again my faith is intact. I believe yours will be the one at risk if the OT Testament is found to be with errors or even the New Testament for that matter. You are the ones who believe that scripture is infallible, not me. Your faith is determined by that. Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong because you believe God got it wrong. You said Dan was elitist, and then pronounced God to be in error, the mac-daddy of all elitist acts. God’s purpose in the OT and NT are exactly the same- that we should share His character so that we can live in relationship with Him. All of the OT books show us things that resonate in our own lives so that we will see our need for God, repent, and be saved by grace, through faith. Jesus is the resolution of the whole thing and resolutions, by definition, require a beginning. Faith means at least in part, believing God can keep His word intact through the centuries despite evil people trying to stamp it out and/or pervert it.
Hey Steve, it’s amazing how defensive you become and how you never answer the question about your faith being determined by whether or not the Bible is infallible. I have answered every question that Dan or you have asked however you can’t seem to answer the one simple question I’ve asked which is would your faith be in question if the Old Testament is found to be with error? I respect your position because that was my position for many years. I do not feel you respect my position nor do I feel respected in this debate. Which is okay because I’m used to it. But my faith is not without challenge nor is it without study. So I’m willing to continue to go toe-to-toe just wish it could be more respectful from your end.
What fallibilities? God got it right bro
Romans 10:17
“So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Ok???
I think the verse is self explanatory, but if you need it broken down . . . You asked where faith comes from. Paul let’s the Romans know that it comes from hearing God’s Word aka the Bible, and at the time when this was written, was the Old Testament, some of the Epistles and some of the Gospels.
Married to this scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
In this verse as well, Paul is making a statement that all of scripture including the OT scriptures are breathed out by God. Faith comes by these words.
Hey Eric,
Uhhh…i never asked where faith comes from. I asked if your faith would survive if you discovered the scriptures are not infallible?
Again, you refuse to answer.
If blue isn’t blue, is it still blue? Is that what you learned in your years of theology classes?
My answer to you is “God is”
God is blue? 🤣 Meijer a theology class and taught me the fundamentalist Systematic Theology that you and Steve and Dan all are submitting to me here. However after further years of study and communication with people groups all over the world I have come to modify my Theology and to think differently than what I once did. I no longer hold to the inerrant scriptural View. I believe there are tons of cultural myth and Pagan influence within the pages of the Old Testament stories. Ever heard of the epic of Gilgamesh?
After years of struggling with this and weighing out the various theological views and opinions, I have reason to believe that the system I now hold is more accurate than what I once did.
that being said, would someone please, I’m begging, answer me this question… If you find the scriptures to be inerrant will it matter to your faith?
But your question doesn’t make sense. You are asking if a perfect God does things imperfectly. The NT says that all scripture is from God. Is it easier for God to make a molecule out of nothing or to keep scripture just as He wants it for all generations? Neither is a problem for God. I believe it (OT and NT) is exactly as He wants it. It requires faith; human reason alone won’t get a person there. Jesus said if you believe you will see, not if you see you will believe.
I appreciate your passion for the topic, but I can’t conceive in my mind our Holy God separate from His qualities which are perfect, without blemish. He does all things well
Steve,
I’m not the only believer who feels the bible isn’t inerrant. This isn’t some new theology. Since you refuse to answer for yourself, let me put it to you another way. Are you saying the millions of us who feel the bible contains errors, myth and cultural traditions, but still believe in God and in the work and person of Jesus Christ…is our faith null and void? Are we not “saved”? Do we have any relationship with God at all? Will we make it to heaven?
I don’t know, but I do believe the OT law is part of Gods plan of salvation for us.
Remember the OT law came after the Hebrews were saved from Pharoah through blood and water. The only thing the law can do before Jesus is to condemn us and point to the fact that we need a savior.
But after accepting the grace of Jesus, then we are freed to obey the law through the indwelling Spirit. We aren’t saved by said obedience but the obedience enables our relationship with God to grow deeper. We will be just men made perfect.
So I think it’s a mistake to ignore the law because this crimps our walk with the Lord. Without Holiness no one will see God. We have to share His character if we are going to live in His presence. God doesn’t lie, so we shouldn’t lie, for example.
That should say my years of theology dot-dot-dot
Awkward silence…
The purpose of the Old Testament is to show the depravity of man’s sin as well as the utter inadequacy that man has in saving himself from his own sin. The Old Testament law is there to show that our depravity affects every aspect of our life, From our personal relationships (Commandments 1-4) relationship with God (Commandments 5-9) and our own thought life (Commandment 10). The Levitical laws were multi-faceted, they were in place to show the chosen people what they were supposed to do to make themselves unique from the rest of the World, dietary laws and ceremonial laws. There were also sacrificial laws, that were there to show that sin is only paid for with death. The animal sacrifices did not actually cleanse the people of their sin, rather it kept the penalty of sin at the forefront of their minds.
This is why the prophets foretold of a coming Messiah that would be the final sacrifice. Jesus told the Pharisees through the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16:27-31. 27 “And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
Jesus in this parable says that they have Moses and the Prophets, if they do not listen to them, then they will not even be convinced by a resurrected person. The writers of the New Testament were students of the Old, and therefore took the information and showed in hindsight what the Prophets told in foresight. Jesus makes clear that we must listen to the Old Testament writers.
Hey Eric
1. When people lead someone to Christ seldom if ever is a reference to the Old Testament used People pass out New Testament bibles, never the opposite. The New Testament can stand alone in leading someone to Christ.
2. Of course the early church and even jesus reference the Old Testament and prophets, the New Testament had not been written yet.
3. If you’re going to tell someone that the Old Testament is reliable and you explain the creation story to them then you must also be ready to explain why other mythological creation stories are not just as acceptable as the one we find in Scripture.
4. The fact is we were born into the faith through our parents and upbringing. Very very few of us have ever studied enough of what other religions teach in order to make an educated response to which one is the most true. Have you ever read the Samoan creation story?
Let’s start there. Thoughts?
It seems that Jesus believed that the Old Testament told His story when he tells the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection:
“And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?””And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:25-27).
Given what Jesus said to these two men: Do you believe Andy was in error when He taught that the Old Testament doesn’t tell the story of Jesus?
Hey Dan,
The ot is a mixed bag of myth, history and cultural rich tales. As i said there is a foreshadowing of a messiah who would come. However the Jews would say the jesus of the nt is not the one they are still looking for. It would also appear that jesus FOR THE MOST PART used ethical references to the ot. It’s interesting to note that he also ammended many of the ethical requirements of the ot. “You’ve heard it said, but i say…” My point is that just because jesus quotes from it doesn’t validate the entirety of it.
Let me rephrase the question: Do you believe Jesus and Andy see the Old Testament in the same way, as a telling the story of Jesus through various themes, foreshadows, and types?
To some degree in my limited understanding of what Andy actually believes, yes.
I apologize, but did you agree that they DO see the Old Testament the same or DO NOT see the Old Testament in the same way?
Its a very hard question because it leads to a lot of speculation. But for the sake of the arguement i will say similarly the same.
BTW. You do know what Andy believes just like you know what I believe as I communicate in this reply – through words. Likewise, I know what you believe given the conveyance of the words you use. Sometimes we need more words in order to bring further clarity as to the precision of our meaning, but words are nonetheless the mechanism by which we do know what Andy believes. If Andy teaches something and I refuse to believe the plain meaning of the words he uses, we call that “living in denial.” I am confident neither of us want to be guilty of that.
Sure, as troublesome and misguided or words can be sometimes, they are the vehicle.
Have i answered your question?
Again, could you clarify what you mean? I do not understand your reply – “Its a very hard question because it leads to a lot of speculation. But for the sake of the arguement i will say similarly the same.”?
You are wanting a black and white answer in a field of total grey. It’s like asking what salt tastes like. Hard to define.
I believe Andy has issues with the ot. But so do i. You are wanting to label him a heretic at the worst or misguided/misunderstood at best. You believe that because you feel the ot is crucial to faith, belief, etc. You believe that because jesus quoted from the ot and in so doing validates the entire ot. I do not think that way. Most of the time jesus is quoting the ot he’s clarifying, refuting or modifying the belief systems the hebrews had adopted through the misuse and misinterpretation of the law.
Are there things to learn from the ot? Certainly. Is it without error, myth or tradition? Hardly. Should we throw it all out. No. Do the errors change our faith in the work and person of jesus? Not mine. But i do believe it changes yours.
It feels like you are avoiding the obvious difference between the Andy’s teaching and the teaching of Jesus on this matter. Again, I am only asking your conclusion on this one thing Andy clearly taught to the church he pastors in comparison to what Jesus clearly taught the two disciples in Luke 24.
“Two episodes ago … we discovered that when the church launched that the foundation of the faith of the early Christians was not a book — they didn’t have one, it wasn’t the Bible — there wasn’t one, it wasn’t the Old Covenant or what we call the Old Testament or what they called the Law and the Prophets, um because that (unintelligible) … didn’t tell the story of Jesus … the foundation of the faith for the early church was an event, it
What is the “unintelligible” word or phrase that is missing ot of your quote of Andy?
Mark, it seems like you don’t want to answer my question. While you may not intend, refusing to answer does communicate a level of insincerity and attempt to obfuscate the issue which in turn betrays your seeming intent to follow the truth. Please answer the question.
BTW. I do not know what Andy was trying to say, hence the “unintelligible” notation. You are free to listen for yourself to try and determine what Andy was saying, I did include the time stamp for this reason.
Hey Dan i can’t help the fact that you can’t understand what yes means. I’ve said it several times now. I’m giving you a yes for the sake of the conversation.
I will say that you demanding a yes or no answer in a world of gray is very humorous to me. You fundamentalists want everything to be black and white when it’s clearly not. But again I’m willing to play along because that’s what you were demanding. Your question is not a yes or no answer. There isn’t a yes or no answer to your question. But again for the sake of the argument I am saying yes Andy Stanley and Jesus are saying the same thing now let’s see you utilize all your fundamentalist theological methods to refute it. However I already know the answer. What you don’t seem to understand is the fact that you don’t know the answer to anybody else’s questions.
Mark, thanks for your direct reply. If words have any meaning, then you are wrong. Andy’s statement that Old Testament “doesn’t tell the story of Jesus” is in direct conflict with the statement Jesus made: “And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke 24:25-27.
Given that you have a firm belief rooted in what you want to believe regardless of the evidence, I believe our dialogue cannot proceed. Thank you for the discussion, I enjoyed it.
It’s so funny that you only want to dialogue when it’s on your terms. I think you missed the fact that there is a world out there asking a whole lot more questions than you are able to answer. Any of us for that matter but especially those who have different beliefs than the fundamentalists. And for you to dismiss me as being unable to dialogue with because our belief system is different, not sure how you plan on reaching anybody. That’s part of the turn off the world has against Church, Christianity, religion whatever you want to call it.
Mark, I am sorry you took this so badly. My interest in our dialogue came to an end when you refused to acknowledge something as true given your entrenched bias. I am confident that if you were in a math class and refused to acknowledge that 1+1 = 2 based on your differing “belief system,” the teacher would still give you an “F” as a grade. If you disagree and are truly open to dialogue based on rational, the offer to buy you a coffee still stands. I would love for you to prove me wrong. Either way, I hope we can part ways amicably.
So I didn’t acknowledge something is true because you said it was true???
It must be amazing to have a corner on the market of Truth.
Mark, c’mon, really? Snide comments and arrogant assertions are not needed. You said Andy taught the same thing Jesus taught and that is demonstrably wrong. This is not about me arrogantly elevating myself or what I want to believe. I simply asked (4 times) for an answer to the supplied quotes from both Andy and Jesus and you chose an answer that is not rooted in the passage cited nor Andy’s spoken word. Also, you did not provide any reasonable answer (using citations or intellectual rationale) as to why you said what you said.
No need for juvenile snipping. We do not agree and in the end one of us will be proven right and the other wrong. I would never slam you for having “a corner on the market of truth” in respect to your assertion that the Old Testament is filled with errors. Do you see how the blade cuts both ways when you make those types of assertions. Anytime any of us says the other is wrong, we are asserting that we are right… you too, Mark.
For the last time, if you are still interested, I am open to talking over a cup of coffee. Still my treat.
Dan, i answered yes to your question for the sake of the argument (go back and read comment). Frankly, i don’t believe that’s what Andy was saying at all. Part of the quote of Andys you took that from is even missing. As I’ve said many times now, I do believe he has an issue with the ot but that doesn’t change the message of the cross or the resurrection of jesus and that’s the message he preaches minus the ot.
Here’s some comments by Andy Stanley from the Christian Post:
“The dehurched who grew up in church exit because they find the version of Christianity they’ve grown up in unconvincing, uninspiring and irrelevant. Moreover, ample evidence exists for the resurrection in the claims Jesus made about himself even if one does not believe that a worldwide flood took place or Hebrew Exodus from Egypt occurred.”
Hw defends his comments further by saying “So will you consider retooling in order to win some and save some? Are you willing to take a long hard look at everything you’re currently doing through the eyes of the post Christian? Are you ready to be a student rather than a critic? We don’t have time for tribes. We don’t have time for the petty disagreements that only those inside our social media circles understand or care about. We are losing ground. The most counterproductive thing we can do is criticize and refused to learn from one another. So come on. If you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, that’s all I need to know. And in light of what’s at stake, in light of who is at stake, perhaps that’s all you need to know as well.”
It’s clear that Andy’s approach is changing to meet the audience he’s trying to connect with and he’s focusing in on the central message of Christianity…Jesus, the cross, the resurrection. I find no fault in that.
Now, my question for you is does it matter for someone coming to faith to believe in the inerrancy of the bible?
What you believe then Mark is that God has been thwarted by man in His revealing of His Word to us.
You believe that Gods word is limited by your understanding of it as it supports what you want to do.
That’s what I’ve heard in all this discussion.
Hey Steve, I hardly think God’s word has been thwarted by man. Simply because I believe that some of the stories of the Old Testament were more tradition and or legend or a cultural symbol of the day, that doesn’t negate the fact the principles can be extracted from the stories. Which I believe was the point. Is the story more important than the principal it teaches? It has nothing with what I want to do. It has everything to do with what’s true. I’m not saying that I have arrived at the truth in full, but I don’t think anyone has.
Do you think someone like, say, Martin Luther would agree with your view of the matter?
Funny you should ask. Luther wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation & maybe others…can’t remember.
Andy is not the first who’ve disagreed with what was in our canon…
But he wouldn’t have endorsed unhitching from the OT as Andy has suggested
But you are ok with him excluding books out of the nt. Hillarious! 🤣
Fortunately the Lord prevailed in keeping His word intact as He always has 🙂
Hey Steve, are you familiar with the Nag Hammadi library or q source?
No I’m not
Mark, just parachuting in on what you are about to claim toward Steve regarding the Nag Hammadi otherwise know as the Gnostic Gospels discovered near the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi in 1945 and “q source” documents that were popularized from the German “Higher Criticism” school.
I suggest two things. (1. Please don’t try to either compare these various sources to some early foundational or purer form of Christianity nor that Judaism is an amalgamation of ancient code of ethics cobbled together to form the Law. Unless you have an advanced degree in the study of these sources, I don’t want you to start merely ripping quotes from websites that support either theory. I have studied both in New York with scholars from NYU and rarely have I met anyone who doesn’t work with these text’s understand the breadth nor depth of the content nor historical placement. These sources have been rationally critiqued and add no messaging to either the O.T. not N.T. If you choose to believe that they do, I would, again, disagree with you. If you would like, I can meet with the two of you to discuss or provide a professor to address your thoughts. However, what I don’t want is for you to make claims to people on this website that don’t have constructive value nor that they do not have an academic background to fully understand nor reason to hear in order to progress in following Jesus. My role as pastor at GF is clear in this regard. If you don’t like that, well, that’s the way it’s gonna’ have to be.
(2. Following my last point, if proceeding in these vein, please take this to a different form like getting coffee or another site that has the ability to handle the dynamic on conversation that subjects like these demand.
Dan
In the words of Doc Holliday “Why Johnny Ringo, looks like someone just walked over your grave.”🤣
Wow. It’s so amazing that you just assume I would be ripping quotes from the internet because obviously you don’t think I have a brain in my head or studied in these matters. I apologize if I have introduced your followers into deeper waters. But you post things about the bible and people who teach the bible and you sit in judgement over them as if you were the final authority with all the answers. Well…it just ain’t so. And if you don’t want to be challenged on your beliefs, then don’t post them for the world to see.
You’ve told me I’m wrong on multiple occasions. You ask questions and only want one answer, your answer. Hard to come to any conclusions other than your own like that.
I live in Missouri so coffee is out. How ever i would love to meet you some day and debate.
Dan…
“What if” we had a church where Biblical theology was not frowned upon? “What if” questions that people had were answered from the Bible and non-essential differences were O.K.? “What if” we created a safe place for dangerous questions in the context of a loving community of people? “What if…”
You might need to revisit your origins.
Mark, I am bummed you are not closer, it would have been a great time talking. Thanks for reminding us of our values. I hope the best for you.
I will be posting a blog on the 3 uses of the Law next week. You are welcome to engage.
Not a closer??? Your the one shutting the argument down. You’ve moved a long way from your original values.
Misread. Appologies.
Some are missing the point…Andy Stanley’s book does not discount the Hebrew Bible or the old testament section of our Bible, he makes an excellent case for establishing the order for making our case to a post Christian culture. Going back to first century apologetics…the First thing to point to is Jesus! His resurrection is of highest importance to introduce his covenant with all of us and his simple yet extremely challenging command that we love one another as he has loved us… afterwards we can begin to unpack the rich history and inspiration of the Hebrew Bible and all the ups and downs of human history and God’s interaction throughout. It’s not a rejection of Scripture but a helpful prioritizing of the order of introductions in my opinion.
If your not a fundamentalist your comments will be shut down…fyi.
The order you mentioned is backwards. Because God loves us, He gave us his law so that we would repent of sin and be saved. There is no good news for the unrepentant. Stanley invariably leaves his audience with the message that God is somehow OK with sin now that Jesus has come (you can see plenty of video on youtube for yourself to this effect). Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil- that means He’s not good with sin, not in the OT, not in the NT, now now or ever.
Hmmm. I thought he conquered those things…must have been a bad Sunday school lesson!
There’s grace for those who repent of their sin. Its a great deal, you should take it.
Written like a true fundamentalist. Thx for placing me among those you condemn!
Says the true socinian
🤣🤣🤣🤣 that’s hilarious
A tendency to Universalism
Rolling all Gods attributes into “love”
Exalting human wisdom
Looking outside scripture for salvation
Just some of the attributes of socinianism. I cant laugh at it though
You are either misinformed, reaching or hoping the use of terms few know will challenge you on. I’m your huckleberry!