Posted on 04/16/2020 8:09:53 AM PDT by Gamecock
Andy Stanley, son of famous pastor Charles Stanley, is a serial blasphemer and idolater who twists God’s Word — whenever he even discusses it — and uses it to create a false church built around a false gospel and a false Jesus.
Andy Stanly has made a number of dubious claims about the Christian faith and in particular, the Scriptures. Famously stating that Christianity needs to “unhitch” from the Old Testament, he told his audience that the Ten Commandments don’t apply to Christians. He’s flopped on homosexuality — telling the mother of an openly-gay and practicing girl that her daughter was saved. He promotes the idea that even if you don’t believe in Jesus, you can have a better life by following his teachings. And rampages against the Scriptures telling people that they don’t need to feel like they should defend the Scriptures because they aren’t really that important and it isn’t what Christianity rests on.
Stanley has been criticized for his constant attacks on the Word of God and denial that the Scriptures are essential to Christianity, yet he doesn’t stop. Easter Sunday, he doubled down and took it even a step further stating that we “don’t believe in the resurrection because of the Bible.”
Of course we believe in the Resurrection because of the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God and is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1). Apart from the Scriptures — which the Holy Spirit so graciously gave and preserved for us — there can be no salvation because there can be no knowledge of God apart from His Word.
He’s a Wide Gate preacher. He’s leading people down the path of destruction.
Not sure how anyone could support this clown.
Suppose Andy is this way because of the way his father browbeat it into him. It wouldn’t necessarily excuse Andy, but it might take a little of the sparkle off his Dad’s halo.
Andy Stanley is a false teacher as is his father.
One heresy of Charles Stanley is his false teaching on ‘eternal security,’ that the Christian’s salvation is unconditional and cannot be lost under any circumstance.
Quotes from Charles Stanly book “Eternal Security”:
“Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy” (Chapter 10, p. 93).
“And last, believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation, for God remains faithful” (p. 94).
“Christ will not deny an unbelieving Christian his or her salvation because to do so would be to deny Himself” (p. 94).
From Charles Stanley’s book “Christian Living”:
“You and I are not saved because we have enduring faith. We are saved because at a moment in time we expressed faith in our Lord” (p. 190).
“Discipleship has nothing to do with whether you will go to heaven or not” (p. 505).
“It is possible to be a child of God and never a disciple of Christ. We can live the Christian life with the assurance of heaven as our ultimate destiny but miss the process of maturing as a disciple” (p. 505).
IF Charles Stanley were right, then the Christian could turn to homosexuality and STILL BE SAVED.
A Christian could cast aside his faith become an unbeliever, become an atheist and deny the resurrection of Christ and STILL BE SAVED.
A Christian could reject the rightesous ideas taught in the 10 Commandments and STILL BE SAVED.
Andy Stanley is only carrying out the illogical conclusions of his father’s false teachings.
? more of his mother than his father’s genes
Those are assuredly poor illustrations by Charles Stanley. However, John 6 is but one place that assures us that Christ does not “lose” those who are His. 1 John 2:19 deals with the professing who were NEVER saved. Scripture supports the perseverance of the saints and the inability of those saved to “keep themselves” (Salvation is of God from beginning to end). It does not confuse the professing believer who was NEVER His with those who are as Stanley appears to have done there.
A couple of things - all without endorsing the younger Mr. Stanley’s heresies...
“there can be no knowledge of God apart from His Word” - Romans 1:20 tells us “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
“even if you don’t believe in Jesus, you can have a better life by following his teachings” - true, as far as it goes. Obedience brings blessings to the believer and non-believer alike. Not salvation, though - that only comes from acknowledging that Jesus is God’s son.
All that aside, liars like to sprinkle in enough true statements into their lies so that hey can bully you into saying, “yes, you’re right about that” and then say, “So you agree with me.”
Neither John 6 or 1 Jh 2:19 does not teach the Christian’s salvation is unconditional and cannot be lost under any circumstance.
Jude 1:21 commands the Christian to “keep yourselves” in the love of God putting accountability and responsibility upon the Christian to keep himself. It therefore IS possible for Christians to “keep themselves”.
James 4:7 “SUBMIT YOURSELVES therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you”
Acts 2:40 “SAVE YOURSELVES from this untoward generation.”
Charles Stanley followers still have his quotes to deal with.
You are confusing the facts. The early Church had manuscripts and Scripture.
They clearly had access to Jewish Scripture and even had a Greek version, the Septuagint.
The Church passed around the letters and Gospels in carefully copied manuscripts.
It is true that there was not a New Testament "Canon" of which manuscripts were authoritative until a couple of hundred years after the death of Christ.
Just because the manuscripts did not survive does not mean that they did not exist, neither is it correct to imply that Scripture was passed down in oral tradition. That is simply not true.
Galatians 1:8-9
-- The Apostle Paul
You are wrong. They deal DIRECTLY with the concept of salvation being eternal. Either the Christian has been regenerated (in which case he IS a Christian), or he has not. Jude says nothing about the Christian being in danger of losing his salvation. Nor does James. James is about making sure that one’s faith is saving faith which will result in good works. Jude is admonishing believers to stand firm. Nothing in either place to indicate a loss of salvation. One cannot be regenerated, turned into a new creature, then “unregenerated”.
There IS Eternal Security:
John 10:28-29
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall NEVER perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
Salvation is called the second BIRTH to convey that it is a “SINGULAR” type event. We are born ONCE physically. NO matter what I do in life there is NO going back to being UNBORN.
John 3 explains the SPIRITUAL BIRTH which you can not go back from:
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Sadly, there a TRUE Believers that can “Shipwreck” their lives in many ways by living a life of sin.
THERE are others who were NEVER True Believers. They can SAY they are Saved and Born Again and it just isn’t true.
Matthew 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.(His WILL is that all would be SAVED by trusting in the Finished work of Christ - 2 Peter 3v9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, but that all should come to repentance.)
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Those who you describe as becoming practicing homosexuals, atheists, and live lives rejecting God and his teachings almost certainly never really knew the Savior and God’s Salvation.
I would contend that based on the things Andy Stanley is teaching he was likely never truly Born Again. There are, very sadly, false professors.
Sounds like another heretic, and a lazy and ignorant one at that.
Just to say “hi”. Missed you
“Lets remember any accessible Bible did not exist until 400-500 years ago...”
The Old Testament has been around for thousands of years. The church has had its New Testament since the first or second century. The average person could not read, but the church leaders could.
Wow!
Thanks for sharing!
The Apostles did not believe in the Resurrection “because of the Bible”. They experienced the Risen Christ directly; they ate with him, talked with him, etc. And the Church existed for at least a decade before any of the NT was committed to paper. During that time, the stories that would later become the Gospels were most certainly oral tradition.
No, the stories that became the Gospels were written, for the most part, by the people that had been eye witnesses. At any rate, the written text did not become Scripture until each author penned his manuscript while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Textual critics believe that what we hold in our hands, in the Greek versions, are extremely close to the original manuscripts of the inspired Word of God.
Long time no see! Hope all is well!
Let's remember the OT was in place at the time of Christ.
Let's also remember that Paul's letters were considered Scripture at a very early time....~60 AD.
The remaining books of the NT were all completed prior to the end of the 1st century.
There was very early agreement on the Gospels.
The books generally in question were Revelation, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, James, Jude and Hebrews. Not so much of content but of authorship.
Foundational Christian faith began in the passing down oral tradition and Eucharistic celebration that would evolve into the Church structure St. Paul was committed to building...and as he emcouraged..lets "hold onto" that as well...
Oral tradition is that based on the life of Christ and what was taught by the Apostles. It is not the wide open ever changing dogmas of the modern Roman Catholic Church.
One of the primary reasons the early church determined a canon was to have an agreed upon set of writings that could be turned to refute heresy and that would have a link to the Apostles.
But today we have the Bible because we don't have those Apostles who were witnesses to the Resurrection.
It's one of the reasons we have the written word.
And those oral traditions you cite are not the oral traditions of Roman Catholicism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.