Posted on 03/21/2022 8:37:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The recent now-deleted tweet by Andy Stanley, son of famed pastor emeritus Charles Stanley of the First Baptist Church, Atlanta, reads:
“The Christian faith doesn’t rise and fall on the accuracy of 66 ancient documents. It rises and falls on the identity of a single individual: Jesus of Nazareth.”
Stanley’s tweet was taken from a sermon he preached on March 6 at Browns Bridge Church in Cumming, Georgia.
When first reading the tweet on social media, I was saddened and sickened. This kind of statement was all too familiar to me. I had often heard it made by the moderates and liberals who were in control of the Southern Baptist Convention back in the '80s. I had defended the faith against this kind of approach to the Scriptures in the Baptist Associations where I had served — a time when my support for the Bible as divine and totally without error was in the minority and marginalized.
This kind of doctrinal error is what conservatives worked and sacrificed to save the Southern Baptist Convention from and succeeded. Moreover, other denominations that embraced what Stanley was teaching ended up on the trash heap of spiritual impotence or blatant apostasy.
It was, therefore, quite painful for me to hear a prominent preacher with the considerable influence of Stanley, one who has affirmed his own belief in inerrancy, declare something so contrary to that affirmation.
Unfortunately, Andy Stanley’s view of the Bible is not uncommon today in many seminaries and various mainline denominations that were once faithful. It holds if one argues for the highest view of Scripture as the Church did in the past, then one is in danger of a form of idolatry, elevating the Bible above Jesus, and therefore, guilty of the sin of Bible worship. In other words, you can make the Bible even more important than Jesus. You can give the Bible a prominence the Lord himself didn’t give it.
This is a seductive and harmful argument for those who may not know any better. It’s really a departure from the doctrine handed down by the Church, which has always maintained Christ, the Living Word, so identified himself with the Written Word, the Holy Scriptures, that no teacher can diminish the authority of one without also equally diminishing the authority of the other.
No one ever held a higher view of Scripture than Jesus did. In fact, over and again, Jesus encouraged everyone to judge his entire person and work by what the Scriptures said. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declared he didn’t come to oppose or supersede the Scriptures, but to fulfill them exactly — completely — to fulfill every “jot and tittle” (Mt. 5:17-20).
Years ago, after leaving the pastorate to become the Christian Action League’s executive director, I joined a church where a man came before the congregation as a pastoral candidate. First, the candidate made a general statement about his doctrinal beliefs and church polity and then fielded questions from the audience.
One statement the candidate made was a red flag for me. He said he believed Southern Baptists had elevated the Bible above Jesus. So, before the entire church, I asked him to please explain what he meant.
To the point of embarrassment, the candidate kept avoiding a direct answer to the question by talking about things that weren’t pertinent. When he finally got around to addressing it, he did so in vague generalities, which essentially amounted to no answer at all.
At last, I sought to pin him down and asked: “Please tell us plainly. Do you believe the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God? Yes or No?” His response was honest, but revealing when he replied, “No, I don’t.”
At this point, the candidate became very angry and began to attack my person with insults, declaring he believed the Bible as much as me. I responded that not only did he not believe the Bible as much as me, but he didn’t believe it as much as the people in that church. I then said to him, “You believe the Bible contains the Word of God, but you don’t believe it’s all the Word of God. Correct?” He acknowledged my assessment of his beliefs was accurate.
“Well, I agree with the candidate,” one lady said as she jumped to her feet to defend him. “He’s right! I think our denomination has wrongly given more prominence to the Scriptures than to Jesus.” To which I replied to her, “Please tell me how any of us can know anything authoritative about Jesus outside of the Bible?”
The candidate then replied, “I know! By experience!”
“Experience?” I responded. “And by what standard shall we measure the reality or truth of one’s experience without a Bible that does not err, and is authoritative in everything?” I asked. “How can we tell whether our experience is from God or the devil? Are we to believe our experience can never lead us astray — that our experience will never lead us to a counterfeit Christ?”
No one said anything further and the candidate withdrew his name for consideration, saying he could never be in a church with someone like me. Others, however, argued that I had just saved the church from many troubles and possible failure.
The crux of the matter is abundantly clear for those willing to think and look to the Scriptures. What Andy Stanley espouses is not what Jesus believed and taught about Scriptural authority. Let’s not forget Jesus Himself submitted to the Scriptures. Our Lord so identified Himself and his ministry with Scripture that he affirmed to the degree that one accepts the Scriptures is the degree to which one may know Him.
It should trouble us greatly anytime someone holds a different view of the Written Word than the one held by the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. It ultimately leads to making our own opinions, beliefs and experiences the authority rather than God’s revelation. Such only leads to error, compromise, and a falling away from the faith.
Yup, I’ve heard the sheep gate explanation but just because it sounds like a great explanation and makes a great story does not mean it is accurate/true. I think it is not.
If it was a proper place, the wording would be “The Eye of The Needle” (specific place), not “eye of a needle” (a needle, any one will do...).
This guy does a great and thorough job of nuking the Sheep Gate theory.
https://classictheology.org/2021/10/12/through-the-eye-of-an-actual-needle-the-fake-gate-theory/
Certainly , the text of Scripture contains but a fragment of all the words and works of Jesus, and also from Adam and Eve onward man only knew but a fragment of all that God did and of His mind, but God always provided what man needed to obey God in what He required (though God can give more grace), and God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. :Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." (Isaiah 30:8; cf Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written and established, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
Thus in the promise you refer to, what you leave out is what follows:
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)
Meaning in principle that what is necessary for man's salvation and spiritual life is written, while apart from private revelation (like as to where to live), and of God illuminating more and more of the latent Truth in Scripture, then based upon the premise that there is far more express Divine revelation to know in this life, it opens a Pandora's box for everything from the Gnostics to cults to Catholicism asserting what is the word of God, based upon the premise of their ensured veracity (in circularity, based upon what they say is the word of God).
While men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), church leadership cannot claim the same. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
And rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.) Which establishment pf writings of God, as with men of God, was essentially due to their unique enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, while consensus of the faithful church councils are to recognize ratify.
"Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide us “into ALL Truth,” “teach [us] everything,” and “cause [us] to remember EVERYTHING” Jesus said; which necessarily INCLUDES the things he said that aren’t written down. Or are they not part of “all Truth?” ABSOLUTELY they are, and the Holy Spirit will speak to us concerning these things, also."
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26).
The promise of being led into all Truth will only be fully realized in Eternity for those in Christ, bless God, while John 14:26 does not teach that the Spirit would “cause [us] to remember EVERYTHING” Jesus said, for unlike the 12 apostles, how can we remember what we never heard or read? Instead, that promise is first to those who who heard the Lord and pass what His Spirit inspired them to record into writing, and which the the Spirit brings to mind. Nowhere is there a promise to remember what we never heard. But the writing of what the apostles heard and were given has a depth which is never fully mined in this life, let alone needing more.
Why it is that so many Catholics simply blithely parrot the same polemics that have been so often abundantly shown - including to you - to be dubious assertions in vainly attempting to exalt theor church as the supreme authority over Scripture?
Do you need to see such again?
Andy Stanley was always a bad seed.
Seems like Charles is ruing what he reaped with his actions. Like David dealing with an Absolem type son - defiant and sinful to the last.
Heresy Ping.
Not surprised you think you have debunked this, the world and the devil have had over 2,000 years producing more doubt and lies. The internet is full of it too yet the truth always has a certain ring to it.
Maybe you prefer to remain confused rather than reading and studying God’s Word, instead you debase it with worldly opines.
“Greek Translation (KJV): “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Aramaic text: “And again I say to you, that it is easier for a rope to enter into the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
You’re conflating translational issues with textual issues. The KJV is not a Greek translation, it is an English translation from Greek manuscripts. The Diatessaron was an Aramaic translation of something compiled as a harmony or paraphrase of the 4 Gospels. We have no idea what texts the Aramaic Diatessaron were based on. There are no Greek manuscripts which read as do the Aramaic texts for the verse you cite. The Diatessaron was written (compiled) by Tatian sometime in the 2nd century.
Your proof for your interpretation is what you heard on TV from a preacher or some youtube video. I’m reading the scripture itself to form my opinion.
Mat 19:24-6
24: “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Actual words imply an eye of a needle, not a proper pronoun of a place, i.e. sheep gate. One means “impossible”, the other means “very hard”.
25: “When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?”
That response implies no one could, impossible, not the sheep gate story that you could do it, just it was very hard.
26: “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”
And low and behold, Jesus himself says the word “impossible”, not “really hard”.
You post was #66 so I’m ignoring it. LOL
Why do non Christians like dan simply parrot the same nonsensical anti Christian propaganda as in your posts,
Your polemics and long posts of fluff prove only that you can type.
The 66 books are a modernist logic since the 1600s. The first editions of both the KJV and the Luther bible had the Deuterocanonical books.
These books are clear in describing the Word of God ie Jesus’s entry to this world.
Your link is non https so unsafe. You have an https site?
Interesting as there are also 66 books in the Bible.
BTW no need to worry about your wealth, ever see a hearst towing a u-haul?
To your many references of Canonicty – its just all circular. You discount the historical fluidity of the Jewish canon through the generations and among the differing sects as not worthy of discussions. Then we learn of these Essenes who were quite separated from the Hellenistic Jews and we learn more of what was not known – or could be known – only assumed.
We agree- what ever Jamina was- did not finalize a Jewish canon – Canonicity –Authoritative Authenticity as regarded by the various Jewish sects – you have to pick a specific point in history to accomplish what Luther did- and that is purely subjectivism.
All your citations just point to one big circularly referential mess…. I could offer you the same amount of citations refuting those claims just as easily as well. WHO is right then ? It becomes purely subjective down through the centuries on the who decides canonical validity. Is one man better than councils or hundreds of years acceptance?
See post #46 or #47 in this thread for https links
Also the internet is inherently unsafe so remember those who trade safety and security for liberty deserve neither.
367 AD, Athanasius rejected the books of Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache], and Pastor [Shepherd of Hermas] as being canonical.
So if you’re old an well off maybe best to divest and start sharing it now with those least deserving. Either way you ain’t gonna take it with you.
If I was worrying about my wealth, I would certainly want your version of the story, hard but doable on my own.
So how about reading those verses and then you deciding what they mean, intead of relying on the TV or internet?
Here’s a link to one of those you disparaged - btw he’s done more true scholarship than you and all you’re research combined.
https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/grace-to-you/
OK IF one is so fat with worldly pride and wealth that one may not be able to shed the weight of sin holding one back from the small sheep gate, maybe you have some friends who are willing to help you remove the board(s) blocking your vision so that you may see in Romans 3:23 ALL HAVE SINNED...
All NEED A SAVIOUR. Arguing for anything else is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
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.