Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11pm Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 11pm Pacific.
-
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!
If Andy Stanley were the "Evangelical Pope"
- Thread starter Internet Theologian
- Start date
- Status
But how can you have a Christ-centered approach by taking the spotlight off the very INSPIRED words that tell the lost about Him and what He did.
It is a self-defeating, circular reasoning statement. Aye ya ya..
Oh come on...
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
The slightest hint to disparage the value of the Word of God needs to be dismantled, exposed and contended against. And I don't care what the persons name is who does so.
If Washer, Baucham, Sproul, MacArthur, Beeke, White, had said this...there would have been about 40 pages on this thread now.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
There is no doubt about that!
Speaking of me (not Stanley here), if I said those words then what I would mean is focusing on the Subject of Scripture rather than Scripture itself. In other words, as I went through Scripture I would be casting the spotlight on Christ and determining what this said of Him. In terms of evangelism, I actually think we need to focus on Christ and not Scripture (here I mean focusing on Christ through Scripture rather than the Bible being the ends).
With Stanley, I believe he is simply saying that Scripture focuses on Christ and that is where our eyes should be.
On a more theological bent, however, there are the ideas of Karl Barth and even the teachings (false teachings) of Brian McLaren in therms of dismissing Scripture and looking beyond. So I absolutely understand taking caution here. I just don't think we should automatically denounce the man (especially when he seems to clarify his meaning as our foundation being Christ and the Resurrection...which is biblical).
So I understand and appreciate your caution, but I believe your conclusion premature. He was confronted not so long ago for denouncing small churches and in his apology said something along the lines that he was even offended by what he said. Sometimes people misspeak. Sometimes they speak poorly. Sometimes they mean one thing which is taken as another. And sometimes they are just plain wrong. I believe we give Christians the benefit of the doubt when it exists and I see plenty of room on this topic to extend that benefit to Stanley.
Before this thread gets locked at ~2:00 AM...
How can any of you on here evangelize the lost w/o spotlighting the bible?
How can any of you on here evangelize the lost w/o spotlighting the bible?
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
...still awaiting for a passage to the church that supports Stanley's apostate view. I've requested, all I have seen to date is philosophizing. I suppose this means that many place more value in that than upon Scripture, it is quite apparent that this is true.
But how can you focus on Subject of the scripture w/o focusing on...
1) Christ?
2) Spolighting the bible?
There isn't one, so don't expect one.
To spotlight Christ is to spotlight scripture. What other mean(s) spotlight the Christ? What other source(s) spotlight the Christ?
And you spotlighting Christ by spotlighting scripture. You can't have this both ways.
To focus upon scripture is to focus upon Christ...to focus upon Christ is to focus upon scripture...
All other means are hocus pocus...
All other means are hocus pocus...
All one has to do is listen to the speech in which Andy talks about destroying the "Temple Model" to know that he has no regards for the Bible. He even goes so far as to rewrite history claiming that there was no Scripture used in the church prior to Constantine. He starts talking about Constantine and the Scripture at about the 16 min mark.
His history is wrong though, the early church fathers quoted extensively from what we would call the NT.
Of course he is also very cavalier about the Arian Controversy but that is a whole other topic.
He is doing the whole "Deeds before Creeds" idea while ignoring that we know how to behave because of theology.
I find it Ironic that he attack his invented idea of "Sacred Men, In Sacred Places, teaching from Sacred Text to Sincere people" while he himself is "a Sacred man, in a Sacred place, teaching from a Sacred text to Sincere people"
And then there is his talk about the Reformation 22 min mark. His rant about Sola Scriptura is tragic as well, comparing it to Papel authority. He is upset that Martin Luther used the word armed to speak about people having the Bible, nevermind that Paul himself calls the Bible the Sword of the Spirit.
Add all that to his contempt toward exegetical preaching and you have a man who has shown time and time again that he has no regard for the Sufficiency of Scripture.
His history is wrong though, the early church fathers quoted extensively from what we would call the NT.
Of course he is also very cavalier about the Arian Controversy but that is a whole other topic.
He is doing the whole "Deeds before Creeds" idea while ignoring that we know how to behave because of theology.
I find it Ironic that he attack his invented idea of "Sacred Men, In Sacred Places, teaching from Sacred Text to Sincere people" while he himself is "a Sacred man, in a Sacred place, teaching from a Sacred text to Sincere people"
And then there is his talk about the Reformation 22 min mark. His rant about Sola Scriptura is tragic as well, comparing it to Papel authority. He is upset that Martin Luther used the word armed to speak about people having the Bible, nevermind that Paul himself calls the Bible the Sword of the Spirit.
Add all that to his contempt toward exegetical preaching and you have a man who has shown time and time again that he has no regard for the Sufficiency of Scripture.
Yes. That is what I understand Andy Stanley to be saying here.
Me personally? Sometimes I spotlight Scripture to highlight aspects of biblical history, sometimes to deal with issues in our lives (e.g., to focus on the sovereignty of God over situations we go through, to focus on running to the Father in repentance....even the "fallow ground" sermon I recently mentioned).
Stanley outlined his goal in preaching (one that I disagreed, but which provides his quote context). I would focus on Christ and the resurrection (the gospel) and not Scripture (in terms of those things I mentioned) if my intent at that time was reaching the lost. There is no sense in teaching Scripture to lost people when what they need is the gospel. I hope my meaning is clear in that statement, but to clarify - if your goal is evangelism focus on Christ.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yes, and amen. All we have this far is philosophizing to defend Mr. Andy Stanley. There is no Scriptural support for his stance. This is why it is apparent that many simply are not Sola Scriptura while at the same time thinking they actually are.
1 Corinthians 2 needs a re-read and heavy meditation by some, and by all. Scripture need be extended its rightul place while Jude 1:4 is employed.
I look at it this way, I could criticize (and probably rightly so) every preacher who has answered the call to fill a pulpit (except maybe TCassidy). We are all men, and we are all flawed. I remember Paul Washer saying that when people criticize him they are probably right. I remember two times he apologized for things he had said. While I like Spurgeon and CS Lewis, I can also point to errors with the men. Believe it or not, not even Karl Barth lived a perfect life (that was a joke...let it go 
).
We need to deal with the doctrines that are taught, but I do not know why we seem to have a need to go out of our way to attack other people. Andy Stanley is not my responsibility and I am not his. We all have better things to do (America's Got Talent comes on tonight....I think) than to do our best to destroy the reputation of a preacher.
).We need to deal with the doctrines that are taught, but I do not know why we seem to have a need to go out of our way to attack other people. Andy Stanley is not my responsibility and I am not his. We all have better things to do (America's Got Talent comes on tonight....I think) than to do our best to destroy the reputation of a preacher.
- Status