If Andy Stanley were the "Evangelical Pope"

[Internet Theologian]

This is what happens when the Sufficiency of Scripture is not taught and believed. As Justin Peter's rightly points out in his "Clouds without Waters" seminar we have won the battle for inerrancy but we are losing the war for Sufficiency and most churches don't even know that war is being waged. Of course the Scripture is not understood by non-Christians, because the things of God are spiritually discerned.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14

That's a correct assessment of the issue and he nailed it. That is a major problem today, belief in the sufficiency of the Scriptures. It's sad really to behold in churches that over and over for years all people have is a few small proof-texts, and they are used to defend themselves against the real truths of Scripture, pitting them against truth.

 

[Baptist Believer]

One major thing is he would want is the focus off of the Scriptures. Apostasy in action:

I have to say, I generally agree with Pastor Stanley's actual words in this clip (not the perversion of them in the commentary below the frame). He wants Christians to put the focus back on Jesus instead of obsessing about the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible.

I think his comments regarding this issue are directly based on the teaching of Jesus where Jesus tells the unbelieving religionists:

"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these [scriptures] that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:39-40)​

The people He was addressing had made an idol of the scriptures - as well as their interpretation of them - and rejected the teaching of Jesus based on their mistaken belief that adherence to the scriptures is the source of eternal life, not Jesus.

This belief that a correct view/understanding of scripture brings eternal life is shockingly common today in Christian circles. Teaching about the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture is gratefully received, while teaching regarding how to do and live in the teaching of Jesus is ignored or even rejected.

All I have to go on here is this short clip, but I think a focus on Jesus and His resurrection (the foundation of the first century church) is absolutely the correct focus for the church.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Does Andy Stanley not grasp that the sacred text, God's holy Word, is where we GET the concept of loving God and loving each other?

Where has Stanley advocated getting rid of the scriptures? It certainly wasn't in this clip. The running commentary below what he said worked quite hard to twist what he was saying, so it may have been the persons commenting that advocated such nonsense.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The logical conclusion of his apostate point of view is there is no need for Scriptures, all we need is his version and definition of love. Tyndale, Coverdale, others...if they only knew.

How in the world did you come to this "logical conclusion"?

He simply advocated that Christians focus on Jesus and the resurrection. There's no hint that he suggested getting rid of the scripture.

 

[Baptist Believer]

But let's lay them aside and talk love.

Where has he advocated laying aside scripture?

 

[Internet Theologian]

How in the world did you come to this "logical conclusion"?

He simply advocated that Christians focus on Jesus and the resurrection. There's no hint that he suggested getting rid of the scripture.

He didn't merely say focus on Jesus and the resurrection, he said this after being dismissive toward Scripture. Any minister who suggests not focusing on Scripture is apostate. How in the world did I come to my conclusion? Logically. But then again I'm no follower of either Stanley.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Where has Stanley advocated getting rid of the scriptures? It certainly wasn't in this clip. The running commentary below what he said worked quite hard to twist what he was saying, so it may have been the persons commenting that advocated such nonsense.

No one twisted what he said. Your ad hominem approach has no place in this thread.

 

[Internet Theologian]

'I would ask pastors (&c) to get the spotlight off of the Bible...'

I don't care what he says after this. The statement is anti-Scriptural, apostate, arrogant.

The other issue is his telling what he believes to be 'dead churches' to sell their buildings and give their monies to church planters.

The size of a church does not determine whether it is alive or dead. His broad brushing and general dismissiveness of small churches and Scripture is the epitome of arrogance. He has many other troubling beliefs as well.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Where has Stanley advocated getting rid of the scriptures? It certainly wasn't in this clip. The running commentary below what he said worked quite hard to twist what he was saying, so it may have been the persons commenting that advocated such nonsense.

Brother, when he says, "Take the focus OFF of scriptures...", I don't think there's a debate here. How can you focus only on Jesus if you don't focus on the scriptures?

You may "interpret" that he is talking about taking the focus off of the debate about the Bible being inerrant and sufficient, but that isn't what he literally said.

And because this isn't the first time nor the second time nor even the third time that Andy Stanley has caused confusion about his beliefs about the foundation of God's Word, maybe it's time to have this discussion.

 

[Van]

It is one thing to focus on Christ and His teachings, it is quite another to say the teaching to love one another and consider one another more important than ourselves overwrites teaching concerning sex outside of marriage, or giving up on the roles outlined for men and women in the church and in marriage.
One verse seems to stand out, if you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

 

[StefanM]

He didn't merely say focus on Jesus and the resurrection, he said this after being dismissive toward Scripture. Any minister who suggests not focusing on Scripture is apostate. How in the world did I come to my conclusion? Logically. But then again I'm no follower of either Stanley.

Focusing on Jesus is exactly what Scripture points us to do.

I wouldn't have used the words Andy Stanley used, but I think his intention was simply to say that we need to focus on the core of the Christian message--Christ and his death and resurrection (i.e. only means through which grace can be provided through faith to save a person from sin).

 

[Internet Theologian]

Brother, when he says, "Take the focus OFF of scriptures...", I don't think there's a debate here. How can you focus only on Jesus if you don't focus on the scriptures? .

Which 'Jesus'? Describe Him to me, and don't use any Scriptures in doing so. I hope you see my point here Scarlett, and I am being facetious!

 

[Internet Theologian]

Focusing on Jesus is exactly what Scripture points us to do.

I wouldn't have used the words Andy Stanley used, but I think his intention was simply to say that we need to focus on the core of the Christian message--Christ and his death and resurrection (i.e. only means through which grace can be provided through faith to save a person from sin).

Resurrection? His death? Where did you get all this information? Care to detail it for me?

 

[JonC]

Focusing on Jesus is exactly what Scripture points us to do.

I wouldn't have used the words Andy Stanley used, but I think his intention was simply to say that we need to focus on the core of the Christian message--Christ and his death and resurrection (i.e. only means through which grace can be provided through faith to save a person from sin).

I agree. I think that Andy Stanley needs to be more careful as what he said can easily be taken out of context (he needs to know that Christians are known for killing their own, so to speak). If I recall, there is another preacher who said that he decided to know nothing among the church except Jesus and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Did Paul mean to ignore Scripture (the Old Testament)? Of course not. So the question "which Christ ?"is obsolete. Focusing on Jesus includes focusing Scripture. But it is not necessarily focusing on Scripture for Scripture's sake. The focus of any study of Scripture needs to be Christ.

Where I disagree is that it seems to me he's downplaying the Old Testament. This may be, however, just a misunderstanding on my part.

 

[JonC]

Resurrection? His death? Where did you get all this information? Care to detail it for me?

I don't believe that Stanley stated he rejected Scripture. He most likely gets that information from the Bible. While you may disagree with his view, here you've missed his point.

 

[StefanM]

Resurrection? His death? Where did you get all this information? Care to detail it for me?

You know full well that Stanley is referring to content from the Bible.

Even so, Christ is the Logos and is the most important person (or anything else) in Scripture. It all points to him. When you point to Christ, you are doing what the Scriptures teach us all to do.

 

[StefanM]

I agree. I think that Andy Stanley needs to be more careful as what he said can easily be taken out of context (he needs to know that Christians are known for killing their own, so to speak). If I recall, there is another preacher who said that he decided to know nothing among the church except Jesus and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Did Paul mean to ignore Scripture (the Old Testament)? Of course not. So the question "which Christ ?"is obsolete. Focusing on Jesus includes focusing Scripture. But it is not necessarily focusing on Scripture for Scripture's sake. The focus of any study of Scripture needs to be Christ.

Where I disagree is that it seems to me he's downplaying the Old Testament. This may be, however, just a misunderstanding on my part.

In fancy terms, Stanley is just appealing for a Christological hermeneutic.

 

[kyredneck]

Without the scriptures, no one can be saved.

By "saved" you mean 'go to heaven', right? (which I believe is not the primary Biblical meaning of sozo)

Do the scriptures conveyed by the preacher or the parent or the Sunday School teacher or the missionary or any other 'soul winner' convey the Spirit by conveying the scriptures to whomever? Must the Spirit be carried by man? Is that how God intends to populate heaven? With MAN as the mediator?

No. There's only ONE mediator.

The Spirit where He willeth doth blow..... Jn 3:8 YLT

13 who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten. Jn 1 YLT

NONE ARE GOING TO HEAVEN BECAUSE OF THE WILL OF ANY SOUL WINNER TO CONVEY THE SCRIPTURES TO THEM.

The heavenly birth is supernatural, the one being born is totally passive, and those outside have zilch to do with it.

 

[JonC]

By "saved" you mean 'go to heaven', right? (which I believe is not the primary Biblical meaning of sozo)

Do the scriptures conveyed by the preacher or the parent or the Sunday School teacher or the missionary or any other 'soul winner' convey the Spirit by conveying the scriptures to whomever? Must the Spirit be carried by man? Is that how God intends to populate heaven? With MAN as the intermediator?

No.

The Spirit where He willeth doth blow..... Jn 3:8 YLT

13 who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten. Jn 1 YLT

NONE ARE GOING TO HEAVEN BECAUSE OF THE WILL OF ANY SOUL WINNER TO CONVEY THE SCRIPTURES TO THEM.

The heavenly birth is supernatural, the one being born is totally passive, and those outside have zilch to do with it.

That is (or at least could be) a very interesting discussion, Kyredneck.

From an evangelistic point, it seems that thousands in the earliest church was saved without the New Testament. People were saved by the preaching of Paul (not his rendering of Scripture but his presentation of the gospel). Some will even argue that Scripture alone is not sufficient for the lost.

But from the perspective of discipleship, I don't see how we can get around the necessity of Scripture. Then again, some are more interested in how God determined to save people, or the state of mankind, than they are the focus of the Bible being Christ. The amount of "Christian distraction" we face today is staggering, if you think of it.

 

[kyredneck]

I reiterate, 'you people' interpret 'saved' as meaning 'saved from hell', or, 'heaven bound', when the primary intent of sozo in the NT as related to gospel obedience is deliverance in this temporal realm.