Posted on 10/05/2016 6:35:12 AM PDT by Gamecock
Pastor Andy Stanley is defending his approach to preaching amid questions from prominent evangelical leaders who contend his methods undermine the Bible's authority and pave the way for unbelief.
In a lengthy article in Outreach magazine on Friday, the pastor of North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Georgia, responds to his critics and affirms that he believes in biblical inerrancy. What he is doing, he argues, is changing the angle from which he speaks to more effectively engage a post-Christian society, particularly millennials who have left the Church.
Controversy arose in light of Stanley's recent sermon series wherein he argued that because increasing numbers of people in the United States do not lend credence to the Bible, Christians should dispense with the "because the Bible told me so" rationale for believing its truth claims.
Appeals to biblical authority do not translate particularly for millennials who pursue higher education beyond high school, Stanley said.
"The dechurched who grew up in church exit because they find the version of Christianity they've grown up with unconvincing, uninspiring and irrelevant," Stanley said. Moreover, ample evidence exists for the resurrection and the claims Jesus made about Himself even if one does not believe that a worldwide flood took place or Hebrew exodus from Egypt occurred, he said.
But such a tack bothered Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler who wrote last week on his website that defenses of the Christian faith have never been more necessary. And it is impossible to access that faith without the written Word. Stanley, Mohler argued, was "undercutting our only means of knowing Christ and His resurrection from the dead — the Bible," and warned that his approach would inexorably lead to "abject disaster" for the Church.
"This is an apologetic disaster and would leave Christians with no authoritative Scripture. Instead, we would be dependent upon historians (among others) to tell us what parts of both testaments we can still believe," Mohler said.
"Those parts will inevitably grow fewer and fewer. This is what must happen when the total trustworthiness, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible is subverted," Mohler continued.
Nothing could be further from the truth, Stanley replied in response to such charges. Mohler and others, he asserted, have misunderstood him.
Although Scripture does not provide guidelines for ministering to a post-Christian world, Stanley notes that at several times in the New Testament readers witness Peter and Paul operating from a different framework and using different language when speaking to Jews or Gentiles.
In Acts 17, for instance, the Apostle Paul addresses the Athenians, and urges them to repent from their idolatry. Yet although he refers to Him, Paul doesn't mention Jesus by name. To some that might seem like an egregious omission, like Paul was leaving out an essential element of the Gospel, when really he knew his audience's frame of reference.
"To say Paul's approach to the Gentiles in Athens differed from his approach to the Jews in Pisidian Antioch would be the understatement of understatements," Stanley said. "But his central message was the same. God has done something in the world on behalf of all humankind."
Stanley insists he is doing a similar thing today.
"So will you consider retooling in order to win some and save some? Are you willing to take a long, hard look at everything you're currently doing through the eyes of the post-Christian? Are you ready to be a student rather than a critic? We don't have time for tribes. We don't have time for the petty disagreements that only those inside our social media circles understand or care about," Stanley said.
"We're losing ground. The most counterproductive thing we can do is criticize and refuse to learn from one another. So come on. If you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, that's all I need to know. And in light of what's at stake, in light of who is at stake, perhaps that's all you need to know as well," he concluded.
Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?
The Bible admonishes us to get wisdom and understanding.
Most real Believers have serious concerns about what this “pastor” is doing. That being said, many of us realize that this church of his would have had very few people attending maybe 30-40 years ago. The changes which have taken place to bring an audience to this “pastor” have occurred because of the corruption of our institutions, primarily government schools. How you can pretend that the issues are unconnected will be hard to fathom for any mature, discerning Christian.
There is an apparent pattern to the way you respond to thoughtful, mature, pro-family, conservative Believers. I have seen it in other threads. You fit the profile of someone who is here not to add to a mature discussion, but to cause dissension and bring about an end to any meaningful discussion. Troll.
This is very contradictory:
“Stanley, Mohler argued, was “undercutting our only means of knowing Christ and His resurrection from the dead — the Bible,” and warned that his approach would inexorably lead to “abject disaster” for the Church.”
1) If Mohler believes Christ founded a Church, then there is no reason to believe scripture is “our only means of knowing Christ and His resurrection from the dead”.
The Church was teaching Christ and His Resurrection BEFORE the New Testament was written - and not just to people who had followed Jesus during His three years ministry on Earth.
2) Paul learned the truth of Christ’s Resurrection without the New Testament. He learned it when Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. No Bible was necessary for Paul to learn the truth. Only Christ was necessary.
A few years ago Andy Stanley had Michelle Obama speak at his “church”. Pissed off my sister whose son’s family attends there (much to her chagrin) that she sent a strongly worded email to Stanley. Never got a response.
.
Rood is a well studied Bible scholar, and a dedicated servant of Yehova.
He has led thousands to the true Biblical faith, and exposed numerous frauds, such as the ones you treasure enough to search for on Google.
You are either a totally lost sheep, or a lost goat; can’t tell for sure which.
But your willingness to attack a solid man like Michael Rood leads me to suspect goat.
.
.
No Way!
.
If Mohler believes Christ founded a Church, he is a very weak Bible reader. He founded his assembly while Adam was still alive, but not any “church.”
Moses wrote of the coming of “that Prophet” that we must shema in Deuteronomy 18.
Paul knew all of the scriptures, word for word, by memory before he encountered Yeshua on the Damascus road, where he learned that Yeshua was his arisen savior.
There is no “Church” to be founded; it was a translational error from the Greek MS that called not for a church, but for Yeshua’s ancient assembly.
It is that assembly, Yisrael, the House of Israel, and the House of Judah together, and those that sojourn with them with whom he renewed the Covenant at the cross.
.
.
Stanley is as weak as Rick Warren and Joel Osteen.
2Ti_4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Act 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Deceiver...Stay far away from him...
.
No!
He said he would increase his assembly.
He has no churches; he hates the deeds of the nicolaitans that run all of them.
.
All that denegrate the need for the Scriptures are clearly doing the work of the adversary.
We have nothing but the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit.
.
.
P.S.
There are 28 extensions from the Hebrew original Matthew, the most well known being the Shem Tov.
They all differ from the Greek translations in the important areas.
.
“He said he would increase his assembly.”
He says “will build”. It’s not about “increase”.
And Jesus has a Church. He built it.
“There are 28 extensions from the Hebrew original Matthew, the most well known being the Shem Tov.”
In reality, no Hebrew “original” has ever been found. I too believe that Matthew was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, but I am honest and admit no autograph nor even ancient version has ever been found in Hebrew.
And about Shem Tov: I have no logical reason to believe a Spanish Jewish doctor had access to older mss. than early Christians that in any way changes what is known. After all aren’t these the same Hebrew texts that never once say Jesus was the Messiah while still claiming to be the Gospel of Matthew? As a Christian, I can’t take them seriously then.
You might be interested in:
Both authors - unlike yours - actually heartily agree that Jesus was the Messiah.
.
>> “And Jesus has a Church. He built it.” <<
Nonsense!
.
.
>> “In reality, no Hebrew “original” has ever been found.” <<
In reality no original of any kind can possibly be found.
The point is that the Cohen Mathew was literate only in Hebrew. Judah functioned only in Hebrew.
.
.
.
>> “After all aren’t these the same Hebrew texts that never once say Jesus was the Messiah while still claiming to be the Gospel of Matthew?” <<
What are you smoking?
.
“What are you smoking?”
Hey, I’m only going by what I have read elsewhere. All you have to do is use google to find examples:
Example #1: http://oneinmessiah.net/HEBREWMATTHEW.htm
“It never identifies Jesus with the Messiah.”
Examples provided there:
Never identifies Yeshua / Jesus as Messiah.
Mat 1:1 “the generation of Jesus Christ”
Shem Tob “the generations of Jesus ( )”
Example #2:
“It never identifies Jesus with the Messiah. (See Reference Note 1.)” This website then presents the same material as above. It also has this as Reference Note 1:
“1. In his book the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, professor Geroge Howard, after reviewing all references to Christ/Messiah in Matthew, makes it clear that the author himself (of Shem Tob Matthew) “never identifies Jesus with the Christ/Messiah” In Matthew 16:16 Peter was speaking and not Matthew, the author of the book.”
So, according to that text, ONLY MATTHEW REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE JESUS IS THE MESSIAH. I would still find that very troubling. Surely, you picked up on this in your research, right?
Either way, I would rather just read the real Bible.
All of which is an interesting smokescreen.
The NT was penned by people who were witnesses or inspired by God. These same men were the early teachers. And they were saved the same way as the OT Saints who did not yet see Jesus.
Laughable.
He was not ever called Jesus or Christ until the 4th century.
He was known by his given name by his followers.
The Hebrew Matthew is the only NT book we know for sure is real.
It is the most important of all the messianic writings.
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.