Andy Stanley says Ten Commandments don't apply to Christians

Christian Post ^ | 01/10/2019 | Michael Gryboski

[SeekAndFind]

Andy Stanley preaches to an estimated 33,000 people every Sunday at North Point Ministries' five metro-Atlanta campuses. | Photo courtesy of North Point Ministries

Christians should quit erecting Ten Commandments displays and should instead consider making monuments dedicated to the Sermon on the Mount, popular pastor Andy Stanley said.

In a column published by Relevant Magazine, the North Point Community Church pastor argued that the Ten Commandments are “the old covenant” and no longer apply to believers.

"[I]f we’re going to create a monument to stand as a testament to our faith, shouldn’t it at least be a monument of something that actually applies to us?" he posed.

“Participants in the new covenant (that’s Christians) are not required to obey any of the commandments found in the first part of their Bibles,” wrote Stanley. “Participants in the new covenant are expected to obey the single command Jesus issued as part of his new covenant: as I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

This new commandment is "a replacement for everything in the existing list. Including the big ten," he maintained. "Just as his new covenant replaced the old covenant, Jesus’ new commandment replaced all the old commandments."

Stanley went on to say that he believed so much of the evils committed by churches over history were connected to them trying to mix aspects of the old covenant with Christianity and that although “Jesus was foreshadowed in the old covenant, he did not come to extend it.”

“Dear Christian reader: Why? Why? Why would we even be tempted to reach back beyond the cross to borrow from a covenant that was temporary and inferior to the covenant established for us at Calvary?” Stanley continued.

“The author of Hebrews says it best. Jesus was the ‘guarantor of a better covenant’ (Hebrews 7:22). Later he writes, ‘the new covenant is established on better promises.’ Besides, you weren’t included in the old covenant to begin with! So why are we fighting to build monuments to it?”

Stanley's comments echo the arguments he made in his recent book, Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World, which was released last September.

In the book, Stanley spoke about "old covenant leftovers," stating that he believed Christians had "an uncomfortable history and habit of selectively rebranding aspects of God's covenant with Israel and smuggling them into the ekklesia of Jesus."

Stanley wrote that while the covenant God made with ancient Israel was "divinely ordained," it was also "temporary," adding, "Careless mixing and matching of old and new covenant values and imperatives make the current version of our faith unnecessarily resistible."

Last year, Stanley garnered controversy when he argued in an April sermon that Christians should “unhitch” themselves from the Old Testament.

To justify this, Stanley cited Acts 15, which described how early church leaders decided that Gentile converts did not need to strictly observe Jewish law to become Christians.

"[First century] Church leaders unhitched the church from the worldview, value system, and regulations of the Jewish scriptures," preached Stanley. "Peter, James, Paul elected to unhitch the Christian faith from their Jewish scriptures, and my friends, we must as well.”

He argued that what launched Christianity was the resurrection of Jesus, not the Jewish scriptures.

Many, including Messianic Jewish author and radio personality Michael Brown, have denounced Stanley's “unhitch” comments.

"A pastor as influential as Andy Stanley needs to distance himself from such heresies, making a public, clear, and unequivocal correction that undoes the confusion he has caused. (He knows that I write this [as] a friend, out to help, not to hurt.)," wrote Brown in a column last year.

"He can preach against legalism and against Judaizing, exalting the grace of God and celebrating the newness of the New Covenant, without undermining the very foundations on which that New Covenant is established."

Ray Ortlund, senior pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, Tennessee, and the president of Renewal Ministries, also denounced Stanley’s views in a speech at the Gospel Coalition's West Coast Conference last October.

Preaching from 2 Timothy 1:3-8, Ortlund noted that when the Apostle Paul was writing to Timothy, he stressed his religious heritage through Judaism.

"Paul looks back into his own deepest roots. He goes back to David, to Moses, to Abraham. He reveres the faith that came down to him even filtered through Jewish tradition," said Ortlund.

"Unlike some preachers today, Paul did not 'unhitch' the Christian faith from the Old Testament … And for him personally, Christian conversion did not take his Jewishness away. It made Jesus the Lord over his Jewishness and over his conscience, both of which, he continues to honor."

For his part, Stanley explained that critics needed to understand the context, especially since his remarks were more for an audience that is turned off by biblical arguments.

"I told my kids growing up, if anyone ever asks you 'do you believe Adam and Eve are real people?' here is how you are to answer: do not say 'yes because the Bible says Adam and Eve were real people,'" commented Stanley in an interview with Michael Brown last July.

"You say this: 'I believe Adam and Eve were historical characters because Jesus did. And when somebody predicts their own death and resurrection and pulls it off, I go with whatever they say.'"

[DouglasKC]

The church fathers of Paul’s day(after Paul upbraided them) decided that the gentile Christians weren’t bound to be circumsized, only that they should abstain from fornication and to not eat what was offered to idols. Not one mention as to the celebration of the Sabbath or the keeping of various feast days.

Of course there was no mention. It was the expected day to keep. There was no question that they were keeping them already. They were the ONLY days in the bible. The sabbath was one of the ten commandments.

The acts 15 decision was about how much they need to knew BEFORE they would be "allowed" to be Christians. The Jews though they should have to do EVERYTHING they did BEFORE they were "allowed". Peter and Paul showed them that they were ALREADY accepted by God.

Act 15:7  And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 
Act 15:8  So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 
Act 15:9  and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 

BUT these edicts weren't the ONLY things they were supposed to do.

Act 15:20  but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 

IF these were the ONLY standards gentiles had then we are to to think it was acceptable for them to lie, to kill, to steal and to covet. That's nonsense. These things were the things they were to stop doing right away because they were the most offensive to Jewish Christians. They would LEARN the rest every sabbath:

Act 15:21  For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." 

Paul also spoke of those who “esteemed one day as Holy vs another who might esteem another day” and that “let each be fully persuaded in their own minds”. Apparently some folks even then may have been choosing a different day for their feasts and sabbaths and Paul was trying to get people to not get bogged down in disagreements over custom and then lose sight of Christ.

You're likely referring to Romans chapter 14:

Rom 14:5  One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 

What you've done is common. You've taken a verse out of context and ASSIGNED a modern day idea about Sunday to a verse that has nothing to do with the sabbath, or sunday or days of worship.

Chapter 14, when read in it's entirety, has everything to do with eating and drinking practices. The "esteem" day means simply a day of some practice of eating or not eating something. The chapter likely has something to do with Christians buying and eating meat in the marketplace that had perhaps been sacrificed to idols and then sold in the market. Some didn't they should do it, others thought it was okay. There were certain days that pagans sacrificed. If meat was bought it was usually eaten the same day due to preservation issues so if a Christian served meat on those days other Christians were getting offended because it might have been sacrificed to idols.

Pauls take was, hey don't make this an issue. I don't think its a big deal but if someone DOES think it's a big deal don't offend them. Work with them and accommodate them.

[Elsie]

(a prohibition which probably requires some explanation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish_swallowing

[BipolarBob]

Thanks. That is interesting.

[Elsie]

I don't think its a big deal but if someone DOES think it's a big deal don't offend them. Work with them and accommodate them.

HECK no!!

I'm RIGHT and any of you unwashed, yellow-bellied, sap-sucking varmits that DISAGREE can just pound more sand!!

--Yosemite_Sam_Channeler(Now, ya lop-eared polecat: try and get out of this one!!!)

[metmom]

Not in the least.

But I don’t think Stanley meant what is actually the result of going by the Sermon on the Mount instead of the Ten Commandments.

[daniel1212]

Did you not notice the OLD Testament and the NEW Testament differed quite a bit? Those opposing titles for the two sections are kinda meaningful. From jealous angry God who wants child sacrifices, to belief and faith as the path to a loving Father... the message did change. Did you miss that?

You post sounds like what you see posted by ignorant or antagonistic atheists. I can understand how in isolation we can see a jealous angry God contrasted with God as a loving Father, but that is not how you understand a book which has approx. 800,000 words for a reason.

The parts of the OT in which God can be seen as a jealous angry God are mainly in the context of God having gone to great extraordinary lengths to deliver a people, who were complainers and rebellious by nature, from their bondage .

And for whom God showed Himself to be real, powerful, and intent on making them a great nation and able to do so, And after clearly supernaturally manifesting Himself as Very Real, God offered them and entered into a covenant with them, in which their part was to to keep the commandments given them.

To put it in sports terms, these were a band of misfits who were going to win the Super Bowl against some very bad opposition, IF they kept the rules. But in this case the stakes and goal were far more substantial . Yet when faced with tests of character (no water or food for a time), then even after having seen such incontrovertible supernatural miracles that no rational person could deny were so, in practical terms they not only acted like atheists as regards faith in God, even to charging selfless Moses that he was out to kill them (a victim mentality they likely developed up in Egypt), but most went after false, created gods, which could not save them.

Which meant that after seeing the positive side (toward them) of the power of the one true God in saving them, they would now see the negative, that of the slaying of those who essentially were mutinous, and were without excuse.

Angry, indeed, God was and is serious about redemption and righteousness, yet merciful in saving the very ones He later weeded out, and which was just as well as necessary if the nation overall was to be saved.

As for being jealous, yes, envious no. Jealousy is wanted that which is yours, while envy is selfishly wanting what is not yours, but the motive behind the former is what matters. God simply does not need man and his allegiance, devotion or worship, and actually would spared Himself grief by not creating any beings with freedom of choice, and providing an alternative to choose fro, with consequences for both.

In short, God needs nothing, (Acts 17:25) but chose to show man His benevolence, including giving to theists the very breath they blaspheme Him with, and the sense of morality they ignorantly and malevolently charge with violating. And without any selfishness God can justly require that one uphold what one agreed to, for their own salvific purposes, and be jealous when the object of His devotion runs after the very thing which cannot save them, and will end up doing just the contrary. A good coach can be jealous for the devotion a player of potential is showing toward video games versus devotion to the team.

In commanding His people to worship Him above all else God is not being a bit selfish, as this is only right (seeing only God is perfect in power and love and purity, and unable to fail) and is what is best for man.

Also, even in the slaying of innocent people as in Joshua's conquest, God, who alone knows all hearts, was delivering - taking to Heaven - the innocent children from becoming like their generally wicked predecessors, while preventing them from further replication by destroying them (which atheists charge God with not doing).

As the giver of life God can do so, but does not want child sacrifice by man as with telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. Instead, what God wants is man to love and trust His omnipotent creator above the finite created, and thus God boih commanded Abraham to sacrifice the son God had miraculously given (and thus as Abraham believed, God could just raise him up again) and prevented Him from doing so.

As for the supposed contrast btwn the God of the OT and that of the New, the "New" is not called so as referring to this, but is as explained in a prior post , http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3718791/posts?page=196#196http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3718791/posts?page=196#196

The Lord Jesus made it clear that full devotion is also required under the New covenant, such as

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:33. KJV)

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: (Mark 9:43. KJV)

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:11-16. KJV)

Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. (Exodus 32:26-27. KJV)

Eternity is the issue here.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; (Acts 3:19. KJV)

[chesley]

Amen.

[Ancesthntr]

I had this quote in mind: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

[daniel1212]

Andy is correct that Jesus calls his followers to a higher standard than that established in the 10 commandments. He is just following up that expectation with the realization that we lose focus on the freedom and life of the New Covenant when we build monuments to the pillars of the Old Covenant. The Old Testament is supremely important as it is the word of God - but, it must be considered in context - we have a risen Savior; we are no longer looking forward to his initial arrival here on Earth.

Based on the article Andy is not saying "the Old Testament is supremely important," but that the 10 commandments are not "something that actually applies to us," nor is he simply simply that the covenantal distinction is that we have a risen Savior and are not to build monuments to the pillars of the Old Covenant, but that Paul elected to unhitch the Christian faith from their Jewish scriptures, and my friends, we must as well.”

Thus the question is, how can one "obey the single command Jesus issued as part of his new covenant: as I have loved you, so you must love one another,” without a OT foundational moral basis for understanding what Jesus would so. And relative that, how can Christians be called to fulfill the righteousness of the law by the Spirit, (Romans 8:4. KJV) so that "the doers of the law shall be justified" (Romans 2:13. KJV) if the OT is not applicable, not be obeyed, albiet with its covenantal distinctions ? ,

[mdmathis6]

or I’ll better you one....he discovers simple people of faith and also children...myriads of children...(”for of such is the kingdom of Heaven”).

“I thank you father for you have revealed your wisdom not to the wise of this world but unto babes” Jesus Christ

[Steve_Seattle]

"How do you “Love” someone? There has to be some moral guidelines by which you exercise your love, otherwise you could also commit adultery with someone because you “love” that person."

I've been re-reading C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity," and he talks about this. For many modern people, "love" is restricted to an emotion, and so the command to "love your enemy" seems impossible and therefore hypocritical. But, according to Lewis, the commandment does not require us to imagine that we have emotions that we don't have, but to disregard those emotions and treat people with respect even if they are in some way our "enemy." It sometimes happen that behaving in this way actually changes our emotions over time, so that we no longer need to "pretend."

Lewis elaborates on the possible objections to this, such as the claim that loving your enemy means making excuses for them, or letting them get away with crimes.

[delchiante]

Quote(I think you are on very dangerous ground in casting Paul as preaching Antichrist!)

I think you have me confused with someone else mdmathis.

Paul preached the genuine Jesus.
He wouldn’t recognize Rome’s Jesus.

Because He wouldnt recognize Rome’s first/chief importance of the gospel.

It might mean that Christianity has another Jesus and another gospel than Paul. Paul does warn about this..

And that mirror reflects right back to well,the religionsof the world that follow Rome and Christianity today.
Which is the whole world.
Brings to mind the whole Beasts and mother and harlot daughters in Revelation.

Paul warns about what is being taught this very day in what the world would call Christianity.
And all it took to see that is the scriptures that Paul studied and taught.

You are exactly 180 degrees off line.
Christianity preaches Antichrist.
Another Jesus. A substitute Jesus..

Maybe the first Protestant reformers were prophetic when they called Rome and the papacy and pope Antichrist.
That same Antichrist tells the religions of the worldwhen to work and when to worship.
And falsely claims the Son was born on December 25 (false) circumcised on January 1 ( false) presented in the temple on February 2 (false)
Died Good Friday (false), laid in the tomb on Happy Saturday (false), raised Easter Sunday (false)

That above isn’t Paul’s Jesus. That isn’t Paul’s first/chief importance of the gospel.

How many have that Jesus vs the Jesus Paul taught..

Anti can mean opposed but also substitute . In place of.
It seems the world is being taught a substitute Christ.
An Antichrist.

And contrary to your thought, I am not saying that Paul is preaching Antichrist at all.

Maybe the dangerous ground is under someone else’s feet.
Or a lot of people’s feet.

I see the difference between what Paul teaches and what the world follows.
Another Jesus and another gospel at a very elementary and simple level that may be hard to see and perceive for adults set in their ways. Becoming a child may be a prerequisite to seeing the difference.
Counterfeited difference, by Satan from the very first / chief importance.

You mention the New Covenant. The beauty of understanding the New Covenant is with understanding the Old Covenant.
Wait till people understand why the Lamb uses 30,60 and 100 in His parable. It’s from the Old Covenant.
Wait till people understand who and why people are least and greatest in the Kingdom.. it has to do with those Old Covenant laws which is mentioned.

Wait till people realize Satan deceives the whole world while Christianity is still on the earth and Satan’s most subtle work may be creating another Jesus, a false Christ, a substitute Christ, an ‘antichrist’..
Maybe causing the whole world to worship the beast and image and blaspheme His Name ( breaking the first 3 of the Ten Commandments)
Being marked on the hand or forehead as lawless and disobedient,in the same exact place Israel was to have His Old Covenant Commandments as a sign of obedience and lawfullness)

Maybe our problem is a lack of understanding why I said Paul had another Jesus and another gospel than what today’s Christianity has.

The only way to even understand that is to test and prove everything with the scriptures.
Which I assure you,mdmathis, I do..
It’s worse than me accusing Paul. Its me accusing my past self and an indictment on the last about 2,000 years of religion.
But the Old and New Testament offers witnesses that this sort of deceit and falsehoods would happen while there was a breach of Light.
The Light will return and restore what Satan has polluted and corrupted.
And the words of Paul will not be twisted or rigged tofit any closely held religious beliefs.
Truth is Truth.
And the only source to know Truth is scripture..

And the scriptures confirm to me that Paul has another Jesus and another gospel (1st chief/importance of the gospel) than what the world teaches today.

You don’t have to accept that premise, though.
He has consigned the whole world to disobedience so that He may have mercy on all..
When one sees Antichrist Islam do things that Israel was supposed to do and same with Antichrist Judaism and today’s Antichrist Roman Christianity, it starts to make sense to pray for mercy and not judgement.

Satan does need to be removed but when Satan is removed, those inherited lies go away too.

And the world will have the Jesus and gospel Paul taught.
The Word Made Flesh.
Something today’s religion can’t teach because Satan is running religion.

Brings to mind ‘come out of her’...

For our Sovereign’s glory!

[Wuli]

I will grant that possibly he was just sloppy in how he expressed himself, not being careful enough to NOT imply he was dismissing the Ten Commandments. But that is certainly how many very reasonable people heard when he spoke. I will not judge if it was anything more than a mere oversight on his part, but I do understand how others can believe otherwise - there is so much watering down of “old standards” in biblical teaching today, and ministers not intending that need to be careful that are not misleading their flock into it.

[HarleyD]

Andy Stanley says Ten Commandments don't apply to Christians Christian Post

Which is clearly heretical.

It's not only heretical, but the guy has absolutely NO understanding of the meaning of Law. The Law is good and given for our benefit. It still applies and will until the end of the age because it's beneficial to us. One has to wonder what are they teaching in seminaries these days (assuming he went to seminary).

I would steer clear of this guy more on the grounds that he simply don't know what he's talking about.

[Elsie]

The arrangement of the commandments on the two tablets is interpreted in different ways in the classical Jewish tradition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Two_tablets

 

---

---

Deuteronomy 5 New International Version (NIV)

The Ten Commandments

5 Moses summoned all Israel and said:

Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. ² The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. ³ It was not with our ancestors^[a] that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. ⁴ The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain. ⁵ (At that time I stood between the Lord and you to declare to you the word of the Lord, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said:

⁶ “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

⁷ “You shall have no other gods before^[b] me.

⁸ “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. ⁹ You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, ¹⁰ but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

¹¹ “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

¹² “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. ¹³ Six days you shall labor and do all your work, ¹⁴ but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. ¹⁵ Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

¹⁶ “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

¹⁷ “You shall not murder.

¹⁸ “You shall not commit adultery.

¹⁹ “You shall not steal.

²⁰ “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

²¹ “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

²² These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

²³ When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, all the leaders of your tribes and your elders came to me. ²⁴ And you said, “The Lord our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a person can live even if God speaks with them. ²⁵ But now, why should we die? This great fire will consume us, and we will die if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any longer. ²⁶ For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? ²⁷ Go near and listen to all that the Lord our God says. Then tell us whatever the Lord our God tells you. We will listen and obey.”

[Elsie]

I find it a bit amazing that SO many words are written in this thread; yet so FEW of them are scripture.

[Elsie]

There were two tablets.

The first one had four commandments - on how we were to relate to God (so Jesus’ “first” commandment).

The second tablet had six commandments on how to relate to other people.

I have NEVER seen anything that alludes to what you've typed here.

[metmom]

I think the problem is, people see the Sermon on the Mount as being easier to manage, and it’s squishier, IOW, more feelings based and being *nice* and accepting and kumbaya, where the Ten Commandments come across has absolutes and people portray them as harsh and condemning.

So doing the Sermon on the Mount seems nicer, on the surface, more accepting, etc, but in reality, the Sermon on the Mount sets the bar far higher.

[Iscool]

Feel bad for his dad.

I believe his Dad taught the same thing, which is correct, BTW...

[Iscool]

So lying, stealing, killing etc are okay now in this guy’s book??????

I don't think so...I think he just understands the scripture better than you...

We don't have 10 Commandments to follow, we have 2...

Love God with all your heart and,
Love your neighbor as you love yourself...

If we are to love our neighbor, we will not kill him...We won't steal from him...We won't lie to him...

What it amounts to is were are told to keep the Commandments, out of love...NOT to please God...Not to avoid eternal punishment but because of love...But we aren't capable of that love...It is God who gives us that love instead of the rule of the 10 Commandments...