Posted on 09/22/2016 10:45:55 AM PDT by fishtank
Pastor Andy Stanley says the Bible is too hard to defend
Evangelical pastor preaches that the Bible isn’t the foundation for the Christian faith
by Lita Cosner and Scott Gillis
Published: 22 September 2016 (GMT+10)
Andy Stanley has a church network of over 30,000 people in the Atlanta area, and his church was rated the fastest-growing in America in 2014 and 2015.1 Recently, he has been criticized by many evangelicals for saying that we need to take the focus off the Bible and put it on the Resurrection, because he claims that gives us a firmer foundation for our faith. As Stanley put it: “We believe Jesus rose from the dead not because the Bible says so. It is way better than that! Christianity does not hang by the thread of ‘The Bible told me so’.”2 And: “The original version [of Christianity], the pre-Bible version, was defensible, it was endurable, it was persecutable, it was fearless, it was compassionate, and it was compelling,” but he claims “it is next to impossible to defend the entire Bible”.2
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
History shows without question that the person of Jesus and the character of his Resurrection were being grossly twisted by the end of the first century, so that many had very ignorant or false ideas of the “Jesus” they claimed to follow.
The New Testament, from beginning to end, was compiled from apostolic witnesses specifically to assure that the Jesus at the center of Christianity is the Jesus who walked with and taught the Apostles.
The Jesus of the New Testament, and only he, is the center of Christianity. To stress the Resurrection begs the question, “what do you mean by ‘the Resurrection?’” Without scripture, there are many ideas, all but one being false.
The New Testament identifies itself as a defense of the truth of Jesus, e.g. Luke to Theophilus.
So, just the “scripture” that existed at that moment
I hadn’t heard about that — possibly a gay couple in Stanley’s church — but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. His father must be devastated.
My original point stands, God loves but is just/righteous. This is like a spouse who still loves their former wayward marriage partner, but the love is never reciprocated. With that no contact/driven out, but the love is still there.
My original point stands, God loves but is just/righteous. This is like a spouse who still loves their former wayward marriage partner, but the love is never reciprocated. With that no contact/driven out, but the love is still there.
In the case of the lost, they are driven out of God’s presence (destroyed) and no longer a relevance to anything at all. This is how He also treated His enemies in the OT.
It’s why the lost are compared to weeds and chaff to be burned up in the furnace. Any farmer can relate to that. They grow a lot of soy where I live. The soy is harvested and they weeds get another dose of Roundup. They are simply an annoyance to be removed from the field. Nobody laments over them. Nobody talks of their love for them.
This is why I think Jesus uses this kind of analogy. It is clear to anyone who has lived in the world what the analogy means. He keeps the good grain and the weeds, chaff are removed and destroyed.
BTW, speaking of Soy and chaff, the way they harvest it is really interesting. The machine goes over the field like a big lawn mower and a chute drops soy beans in a hopper behind the driver (you can see them falling into the bin) and the chaff is spread over the field from the back like grass out the side of a lawn mower.
Ridiculously efficient.
It’s spelled heretic. Where did you go to seminary? ;)
“Without scripture, there are many ideas, all but one being false.”
Truth!
Just in my reading today your take was clearly refuted by Paul:
“...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day...”—2 Thessalonians 1
Annihilation has never been a sound doctrine. Jude also concurs that the warning Sodom and Gomorrah represents is one of eternal punishment. God created us in His image and we are not just to be discarded matter. The casting into the lake of fire is of PERSONS who were RESURRECTED unto judgment. Stop lying about the righteous judgment of God!
Just in my reading today your take was clearly refuted by Paul:
“...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day...”—2 Thessalonians 1
I listen to the bible every day during virtually my entire 3 hour commute. I have for several years. This is one of the things that solidified my CI viewpoint (annihilationism, also called conditional immortality).
Eternal destruction is annihilation. You are destroyed, and you are not coming back. Your fate is, in fact, eternal.
To be fair, I’ve been arguing this for many years on various web sites, including here. There is a very finite list of verses that “seem to” support ECT (eternal conscious torment). Every single one is actually pretty easily refuted, either with the english words used in various translations, or using the original greek or hebrew.
I highly recommend the book, The Fire that consumes by Edward Fudge Also, he has a 1 hour speech on the subject.
At rethinkinghell.com, all of the verses are discussed here:http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/
Just go to the scriptures tab and then to the traditionalism or conditionalism tabs. It’s very inclusive regarding scripture support for both positions.
And yes, 2 Thes 1:9 is in there. Here is what it says about that particular one:
According to the traditional view, this eternal destruction Paul speaks of militates against conditionalism. At best there would be no point, it is argued, in calling annihilation eternal; the word destruction would be sufficient, making the qualifier superfluous. At worst the presence of the qualifier means the destruction must last forever, an eternal destroying. The wicked are also said to experience this “away from” (ESV) or while “shut out from” (NIV) the presence of the Lord.
As a matter of fact, it makes perfect sense for Paul to call the destruction awaiting the resurrected wicked eternal. Although in this life they die only to face resurrection to judgment, thereafter they are destroyed forever, sentenced to the second death which is eternal. And the phrase “shut out from” (NIV) does not appear in the original Greek; even the translation “away from” (ESV) is dubious. But if we were to accept that meaning, all it would mean is that the destruction takes place away from the presence of God. The unsaved will be sent away from God’s presence, thrown into a furnace of fire where they will be burned up (Matthew 13:40-42).
Paul said in the preceding verses that Jesus will be revealed “in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance”—a combination of terms found elsewhere only in Isaiah 66:15. This chapter of Isaiah, and the book as a whole, ends with the wicked having been reduced to lifeless, smoldering, maggot-ridden corpses. This is then the eternal destruction of which Paul speaks, being destroyed, rendered lifeless, never to live again.
The casting into the lake of fire is of PERSONS who were RESURRECTED unto judgment. Stop lying about the righteous judgment of God!
Second. Saying I’m lying is not very productive. We are having a genuine discussion about a topic where we are obviously both sincere in our beliefs but disagree. I don’t think either of us is “lying”.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. We disagree. I honestly do feel that you are promoting a lie...in this case. We are all capable of this. I’m not judging you as a person, but am judging your teaching. This is called for in Him.
I guess in your mind that negates the facts, my argument and conclusion that Andy Stanley is indeed a heretic (there, I spelled it properly twice). Nice attemp at misdirection.
In answer to your condescending comment regarding my education: My educational credentials, ministerial qualifications and extensive graduate and undergraduate level teaching experience; teaching a multitude of courses on Biblical Studies, Pastoral Studies, Apologetics and all ten disciplines of Systematic Theology (including Bibliology, the specific topic under discussion), which would be instrumental factors in my ability to come to an informed, educated conclusion concerning Andy Stanley's heretical position: Feel free to examine my FR "profile"... it has only been posted there for years.
.
Definitely not!
.
.
You appear to be dismissing the fact that the word calls for punishment by “everlasting fire.”
A spirit cannot be destroyed; it is made of the same stuff that the Father is.
.
.
Theology is man made stuff, it doesn’t come from The Father, nor from his word; it is born in the mind of man.
One can choose theology, or one can choose the way of Yeshua. One cannot have both.
Rethinkinghell.com
.
Serious loose cannons.
They need a daily re-read of Deuteronomy 12.
.
He didn’t say that, did He?
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.