Except he did bring it up by casting doubt on Jericho, the flood, the Exodus, etc.
I have no problem restricting the Gospel to the essentials but that does include the fall, which is undermined if you ask how anyone can believe in 2 people running around a garden naked.
Let's not forget that this was all said in a church service, which brings up another issue with Stanley and the purpose of church worship services.
Mars Hill is how Paul deals with unsaved out in the world, he gets straight to the important Gospel.
His Epsitles show how he deals with the Church, and he pulls no punches, and never undermined the Scriptures.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Andy Stanley and Mass Deception
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by AndyMartin, May 18, 2017.
Page 4 of 8
-
blessedwife318 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
There are people that I love, respect, and care about who disagree with me here - but I believe the pastor's role is as an under-shepherd (or "overseer") to the church rather than as an evangelist to the world (although I also realize the later bleeds over into the former to an extent). I believe Stanley has a view similar to a pastor and friend of mine in that everything the church does is focused directly on evangelism and getting people into the church. I believe the church is for the saved, and that evangelism goes out from the church.
Ironically, in terms of evangelism I was going to mention Paul's words at the Acropolis. I don't think his method would be welcomed by many today because he did something similar to what Stanley is trying to do. He let the world have its error and used that as a context to present the gospel. I think were his message a sermon to the church it would have been very different. -
Look, just because God is saving people through Stanley, does NOT mean that it is Bible based, or that God approves. There are thousands of lost souls in his church, who are deceived by his "theology", and the Lord, Who is willing that none perish, in His Great Love and Mercy, is saving precious souls. Roman Catholics are being saved in their churches, NOT because the churches or priests are right, but because God will do His work of bring souls into His Kingdom. I have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses have been saved through reading their New World Translation, which does not mean that God agrees with the translation, because, apart from the passages that they have tampered with for their "theology", the rest is the Word of God, which is the Power of God unto salvation to all who believes. -
What is wrong with people? I cannot understand why there are some who are still trying to defend Andy Stanley? There is no doubt that he has problems with the Infallibility of the Word of God. I have also posted on this thread, where AS thinks it not important whether the Virgin Birth as recorded in the Bible, is true of not. He say that all that matters is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. WRONG! The Virgin Birth speaks of the Incarnation of God the Son, when He entered this world as the God-Man. Without the Virgin Birth, there can be no death of Jesus nor Resurrection. No teacher or pastor can say one is important and the other is not. No Bible believing Christian can cast any doubts on any account in the Word of God, as AS is clearly doing. His stance is no doubt causing the faith of many to be shaken and producing in believers a worldly acceptance in the Word of God. He is clearly a danger to the church.
-
I believe we hold the same understanding of infallibility and inerrancy (you and I, I'm not sure about Stanley as his comment about the being true in what it affirms as true has been used as "double-talk"). I still don't believe that men are saved by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ AND affirming biblical inerrancy. The foundation of our faith is what affirms Scripture (not the other way around). Biblical doctrine is true not because it comes from the Bible but because God is a faithful God. -
My point is not to defend Stanley but to highlight that while he may be wrong in diminishing one truth (or several truths) to highlight and convey the gospel, he does have a point. We may believe because "the Bible tells us so", but we cannot demand of the world to believe because "the Bible tells us so." We disagree because I believe the Bible is for Christians and the gospel for the lost. I don't think I'll budge here, but I do understand your concern. -
-
-
The truth is you just don't like him and you will find fault with everything he does. It is like I told one of the other preachers in our county "It is easier for you to find fault with those who are succeeding, than to deal with why you are failing." He got mad, but his associate pastor busted out hysterically laughing. He does not like Andy because he has lost almost 1/3rd of his members to Andy's church. He liked him fine until that happened and then Andy became the devil. What he can't figure out is that the more he bashes Andy, the more members he loses. -
-
-
-
I will give you an example. I was having a conversation with someone who did not believe the Bible, but they did believe the historical account of the martyr of the apostles? I asked him "So, you think these men died aginizing, brutal, deaths to protect a lie? It got him thinking. He now believes. -
Lets hope this thread does not divert from what it was
"Christianity does not hinge on the truth or even the stories about the birth of Jesus, it really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus"?
Is it right for any pastor to say this? Can you deal with this?
Thanks -
Stanley's issue is in diminishing what may appear as foolishness to the lost by actively subduing certain doctrines. He is right, however, that while "the Bible says so" is appropriate for the church it doesn't work well in evangelism . But viewing Inerrancy as our foundation seems to deny the sufficiency of the gospel itself by insisting other "supporting" doctrines be accepted before one can be saved. -
-
blessedwife318 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Do I think its the ideal model? Not for me, but it is getting a lot of people saved, so I am not going to gripe about it. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 4 of 8