Andy Stanley and Mass Deception

I believe this is what Stanley is trying to address – not to diminish Inerrancy but to witness to the lost without assuming they come from at least a “Christian culture”. I think this because Stanley has stated this is his intent and that he also believes Inerrancy important.

@Revmitchell 's argument that there are people who believe inerrancy keeps the lost from Coming to Christ is a strawman argument. No one is trying to toss out Inerrancy. The question is whether or not the doctrine should be a part of evangelism (when we witness to others are we expecting them to hold the same position as we hold….i.e., “this is true because it’s in the Bible”).

There are doctrines one must accept as a part of the gospel itself. Jesus is God. The Incarnation. Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. That we have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The question is whether or not one must accept Scripture as infallible as a part of the gospel….not whether or not Scripture is infallible.

To be forthcoming here - I do not care for Stanley's preaching. I find him often vague and appealing to the crowd. But this is probably more me than Stanley. I don't support his ministry, nor do I know enough about his teachings in other areas to have an opinion. If he teaches heresy then there should not be a reason to make assumptions. Address what he actually teaches. My point here is that we need to be more careful about making assumptions about people and degrading what God is doing through those who serve Him. Maybe Stanley does believe the Bible contains errors (regardless of his statements to the contrary). I don't know because I don't follow the guy. I praise God people are being saved through his ministry. If we are critical, we need to be critical about what he says on his own terms (we can't just ignore when he comes back and clarifies his statements) and not stand on assumptions.

 

I would agree if I understood Stanley as putting the Bible at the same level as the Qur'an. We do not disagree on principle, scripture, or doctrine here. Where we disagree is that I understand Stanley as saying the Bible is no more or less than any other book in the eyes of the world.

Our disagreement is over what Stanley is truly saying. And, as I said before, I believe he is intentionally vague and controversial.So I may very well be wrong and misunderstanding Stanley's comments to reflect a world view in evangelism. I don't believe do, of course. But this is our disagreement, not doctrine but how we take Stanley.

 

I don't see that he did. All I can say is I am grateful God is using his ministry for the kingdom. If he has drifted from sound doctrine then this is unfortunate, but he's not the first.

We don't change the gospel for the world, I agree. We stand firm. But at the same time we are not to ignore effective communication. Right or wrong, I see this as the issue Stanley is trying to address. And I believe he could have done it better.

 

This thread is closed.