As Brother IT previously posted...
'I would ask pastors (&c) to get the spotlight off of the Bible...'
This guy has no right being pastor of any church to make such a serious faux pas...
-
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
'I would ask pastors (&c) to get the spotlight off of the Bible...'
This guy has no right being pastor of any church to make such a serious faux pas...
Sadly there is...
***Off Topic***
If you want to debate sozo please start another thread.
Now, what are your thoughts of Mr. Stanley's statement?
'I would ask pastors (&c) to get the spotlight off of the Bible...'
What in that statement is hard to see? This has nothing to do with LS or FGT, or even sozo. Now, I will ask you again, where do you agree with Mr. Stanley? Where do you disagree?
"When we do wide, into the net preaching and services we de-church,” explained Stanley. “So on this particular Sunday there were no prayers, there was no worship music, there was no corporate singing, there was no offering…"
?? Is this from the OP video?
As Stanley sees it, his job as a preacher is not to make people fall in love with Jesus but to play the part of matchmaker and “set up the dates and hoping that God does his thing.”
“Every Easter I say Christians believe—we just want you to know—we believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead. We do not believe that because the Bible says so. It’s better than that. We believe it because Matthew, an eye-witness, and I talk about Matthew. Mark, I talk about how he got his information. Talk about Luke, who started his whole Gospel life thoroughly investigating these things, interviewed eye-witnesses…”
That is just a plain stupid remark. How did he(Stanley) find out that Matthew was an eye witness? Via the scriptures he is treating in an flippant manner.
https://juicyecumenism.com/2016/08/...re-differences-preaching-cultural-engagement/
“Every Easter I say Christians believe—we just want you to know—we believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead. We do not believe that because the Bible says so. It’s better than that. We believe it because Matthew, an eye-witness, and I talk about Matthew. Mark, I talk about how he got his information. Talk about Luke, who started his whole Gospel life thoroughly investigating these things, interviewed eye-witnesses…”
That is just a plain stupid remark. How did he(Stanley) find out that Matthew was an eye witness? Via the scriptures he is treating in an flippant manner.
https://juicyecumenism.com/2016/08/...re-differences-preaching-cultural-engagement/
https://juicyecumenism.com/2016/08/...re-differences-preaching-cultural-engagement/
This just further cements him as an apostate. He was teetering upon g@y-affirming a few years ago, as someone posted an article about it.
Look at the video, that article and then take into account he was bordering upon g@y-affirmation, Brother Larry. To me, that is three strikes. And three strikes means
Then again......you do not see the preaching of the word as the normal God ordained means bringing salvation either.
How is going to focus on scripture when he is busy being the M.C. for the 90's opening, or summer in the sixties....see on youtube.....the scriptures would force them to leave out that special music.....
Look up Northpoint 90's opening......or Northpoint summer in the sixties
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yep. And that said you show you've missed the point entirely.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Um, no. Not even close:
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Eph 1:12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
'You people' need to go preach your time salvation error in another thread, but not here. Perhaps you'll gain a proselyte or two.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
We have a Northpoint here. Same nonsense. Rock Music during the service. Pastor committed adultery. But they're so cool man, nomesane? They is cool. 'It ain't like church, man, it's cool, man'.
They got that right because it isn't church. There is no offense in the preaching, no offense in the Gospel, and that is what Andy is seeking as well. Make it all cool, no offense, take out the offense of the Cross and they will come in droves, and those poor little churches preaching truth, they need to be shut down and sold and give away their monies so others can plant more politically correct churches.
I did a remodel for one gal, her sister tells me about how cool their church is man, they are so cool. And she is so worldly.
Exactly.
I remember when several Christians attacked Paul Washer for a few comments that he made in a sermon. I recall his apology for the way he expressed a couple of truths and his acknowledgment for having misspoken in the heat of a sermon. But some of the things he presented, perhaps out of proportion, still remained as they were also taken out of context by his detractors.
Christians are going to have to stop attacking pastors that neither influence nor answer to them. I doubt those here who are attacking Andy Stanley are students of the pastor. I doubt they are disciple or pastored by the man. While I am confident Stanley answers to his congregation and God, I sincerely doubt that he feels accountable to those who debase his ministry from within Christianity but without his pastoral accountability.
There are people within Christianity who seem to believe it is permissible to attack other servants of Christ simply because they disagree with their “theology” or practice. How can Christianity advance in our nation when we have professing Christians striking at its foundations? When did it become permissible for members of local churches to turn inwards and mount an assault on the Body of Christ? Why do we object to the opposition we see in the world, which is expected to be anti-Christ, yet tolerate opposition from within?
Do you believe that Andy Stanley was advocating ditching Scripture, or do you think that perhaps he had another intent...perhaps something along the lines of focusing on Christ through Scripture rather than the "Biblical narrative" itself?
What I'm asking is if Stanley actually denied the gospel or if his wording opened the door for others to take advantage of his statements. I've listened to a few of his messages and read a little of him (he's not really my "cup of tea"). So while he may not be my pick, I also believe that we will answer for times when our voices turn against Christ (by opposing God's work through other pastors, by wrongfully denouncing servants who belong to God...not us, etc.).
Basically, the little I do know of the pastor seems to contradict the way some are painting him here and I'd appreciate your insight.
Last edited:
I agree in part with Stanley here, and I think that you have severely missed (or misrepresented) the point he was making.
1. There are people who take Scripture as an idol. Stanley is obviously not saying "ditch the Bible" (as evidenced by his remarks of the biblical accounts). He seems instead to be rejecting the idea that Christians take the Bible, divorced from the powers behind the text, as the reason to believe. Scripture is a revelation of God, not the ends which substantiates our faith. Sometimes I believe that pastors intentionally frame their words to draw objection...or at least raise an eyebrow. But he is right that ultimately we don't believe "because the Bible says so". We believe because what Scripture is...that is, it's the Word of God, it contains the eye-witness accounts of the prophets and apostles, it is God's revelation to man of His plan of redemption and the Kingdom, etc.
2. It is not the job of a preacher to make people fall in love with God; instead the preacher brings God's Word to people and waits on God to transform the heart. I absolutely agree with Stanley here. We do not save people. We are the "matchmakers", bringing the gospel to people. Pastors do not "make people love God". They bring the Word of God to their congregations and rely on Holy Spirit God to move in the hearts of men.
Where I disagree with Stanley is that I do not believe it the job of the preacher (I'm taking this as pastor) to get the unbelievers to come back to church. I believe that it is the job of the pastor (and a preacher in the pulpit before the local assembly) to preach the Word of God to the children of God in order to build up and equip the saints. He has, IMHO, mistaken the role of pastor for the role of evangelist. (Think of the instructions on an airplane...you put your oxygen mask on first so that you can help the children).
- Status