Andy Stanley and Mass Deception

I am not talking about Andy. I am talking about people converted by his ministry. Like I said earlier, he has a church right down the road. He is reaching university students by the drove with the gospel. These kids who are post modern, agnostic, athiest, and everything else under the sun are being saved. I can guarantee you 99.9% of them would not be converted by someone shouting "The Bible says your going to burn in Heeeeeelllllllllllllllllluuhhh!"

 

No. He actually does not say it is a myth. This is what he said "So when we talk about the Scriptures, and especially the reliability of the Scriptures, I think anytime that we can tie the Old Testament especially back to Jesus, we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know. . .You can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth—so what?—who is Jesus?. . .Here's why I believe this [Adam and Eve] actually happened. Not because the Bible says so, but because in the gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. It appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures and if He believed they were historical, I believe they were historical because anybody who can predict their own death and resurrection and pull it off, I just believe anything they say...."

 

No, it doesn't. The word "myth" has more than one definition and you are equivocating them. Stanley called Genesis and Adam and Eve a "creation myth" because that's exactly what they are.

"Myth" does not mean (only) something that isn't true. A "myth" in this sense is a traditional story or a story that explains something.

Assuming every word in The Book of Genesis is true, it can still correctly be called a creation myth.

(going back into hibernation mode; peace out BB) -JF

 

Context is important. Funny how this did not appear in Andy Martin's vilifying posts...a little dishonest to say the least...misrepresenting someone's actual views is an automatic fail in debates. Game over.

 

More disparagement. More empty charges. The world tears people down, Christians build people up. Who said we should watch our words because they reveal out heart? Tick Tock

Here is the actual post:
Yet another thread devoted to disparaging those that differ.

Lots of young people in High School or College, leave their Christian church because their faith in the validity of the Bible has been undermined. Many thoughtful people have tried to come up with a strategy to deal with the atheist arguments presented as facts in our godless education system.

Spiritualizing scripture (claiming it is allegorical rather than historical) whenever the Bible seems to say something contrary to what is believed to be known facts is one approach. As others have noted, such an approach is deeply flawed and destined for failure.

Rather than burning AS at the stake, perhaps we should prayerfully consider the way forward. Vouchers anyone.

 

found a very good post on the problems with Stanley's Sermon and his underlying premise.
"So if we don’t look to Scripture as the reason for believing in Jesus, then to what do we look? Stanley answers:

Jesus loves you. This you know, for John who watched Him die and had breakfast with Him on the beach tells you so. Jesus loves you, this I know, for Luke who thoroughly investigated the events wrote them down meticulously and interviewed eye witnesses, made sure it was so. Jesus loves you, this I know, because a Pharisee who hated Christians, who was going to arrest Christians, who was going to singlehandedly stop the Jesus movement, became Jesus follower and risked his life traveling all around the Gentile Mediterranean Rim to make sure that you know.

In other words, we don’t need an inspired Bible to know Jesus loves us we just need the testimony of these men. The problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that the words and stories of these men come from the Bible! All of the facts that Stanley appeals to—that John watched Jesus die, that Luke investigated these things, that Paul was a converted Pharisee—come from the Scriptures.

Perhaps Stanley would acknowledge this fact but simply insist that he is appealing to these documents not as inspired Scripture but just as reliable historical sources (similar to the kind of apologetic argument made by Wenham).

If so, then his view, in effect, would be, “Jesus loves me this I know, because historically reliable documents tell me so.”"

Is the Bible Foundational to Christianity? Engaging with Andy Stanley

 

Keep in mind who his target audience is here. That is the key. He wants to reach those who are turned off by stereotypical Christianity. He wants to reason with those who do not believe The Bible is true. Guess what? Its working! He is bringing souls into the kingdom.

 

This thread got me thinking back. I remember when back in the day Billy Graham was getting piled on and attacked for being too liberal.

 

I've listened to probably a dozen of his speeches, and I've yet to hear a solid Gospel presentation. Getting people to come to a building, or listen to a speech online does not equal bringing them into the kingdom. Even in the message that is the subject of this thread there was no Gospel Presentation. No mention of Sin or Judgement. Just have a relationship with Jesus, who we know about through historically reliable manuscripts because he predicted his own death and resurrection. No word on why he had to die.

As far as I can tell he is more interested in entertaining goats than in feeding sheep and that is a problem.

 

Do you know anyone who goes to his church?

You are impossible. In that one instance, Andy did not say why Jesus had to die. He tells why Jesus died quite regularly. People get saved in his ministry. I am aware that there is a huge difference between salvation and hanging out under the steeple. I am sure you will not admit that you misstated Andy's views. Hopefully, now that you have put yourself in the bottom of a hole, you will quit digging. If I had taken the words of a fellow Christian out of context as badly as you did, I would apologize instead of trying to go nitpick another area of his doctrine.

 

Then maybe you can link to a speech where he does present the Gospel so I can listen, because I have yet to hear one. For someone that prides themselves on getting unchurched people into their doors I would expect to hear the Gospel preached in almost every sermon.

I have not misstated his view, it has been clear to most everyone on this thread.

I have read several article from people that have left North Point and all of them point out that it is seeker friendly, night club like atmosphere and use entertainment to fill the seats, not the Gospel. I have no respect for groups that embrace the seeker friendly idea of letting non Christian tell the church how it should be run.

 

I have no problem with the idea that one does not have to embrace inerrancy to be saved, but I'm not sure how anyone can present and defend the Gospel without inerrancy. Andy Stanley is worried that the OT won't stand up under scrutiny, but seems to ignore the fact that the Gospels are also put under a lot of scrutiny. Late dates, document Q, questioning sources and reliability etc. are all out there for non Christians to find. Add into the mix the Gnostic books (especially in light of his claim that the Bible didn't exist until the 4th century) and you still have a recipe for kids to walk away from what John wrote, or what Peter wrote.

When it comes to the Bible I'm very much like Spuregon, you don't defend a lion you let it out if it's cage.

God's infallible word will always accomplish His purpose, so why would I want to stand in the way of that.

This generation is no different to any other generation, depraved sinners. They will not be argued into the faith, that comes by hearing the Word of God.

When Paul was in Athens at Mars Hill we don't see him reasoning with them about the gods of the pathion, but instead he uses it as a jumping point to talk about Sin Righteousness and judgment.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
Acts 17:30-31

That is what we should focus on when dealing with unsaved as that is what the Holy Spirit is convicting the world of.

8And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;10concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;11concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
John 16:8-11

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk