Another scattershot presentation by the choleric Rev. Wade. As usual, he rails against his perceived enemies with a stream-of-consciousness, barely coherent rant. The fact that he labels these as devotionals continually amazes us.
We should note that we are not here to defend Andy Stanley. He may indeed be teaching false doctrines. Our intent is to examine Rev. Wade's presentation.
--------------------------
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4
Click Here
(...) Deleted long, irrelevant rant.
"The bottom line in terms of what a person must believe about the bible in order to be a follower of Jesus is really this simple. You just have to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, OR John are reliable accounts of actual events, that's it." - Andy Stanley
Really. So, the theological position Andy is staking claim to is that we do not need the bible at all, just one gospel account. Note he did not say "and" but rather, "or." The key verse clearly states that we live by every word the has proceeded out of the mouth of God, not just one of 66 books. I guess the word is not really a lamp unto my feet, only a sliver of it. Job said he treasured the words of God's mouth and that they were more than his daily bread but not ole Andy Stanley! Luke says blessed are those who obey the word, not merely part of it. John declares the word, again the entire word, is truth! Why would we marginalize it like this! (We can only go on what is quoted, and Stanley does not say anything about gaining maturity, living a holy life, or the inspiration of the whole of Scripture. His claim is specific, that to be a follower of Jesus, one does not have to command an understanding of, or even read, the entire Bible.
Rev. Wade's problem with this is that he believes correct doctrine is a prerequisite to proper salvation. That is, sanctification is confused with justification.
However, we are justified at the moment of salvation, yet know next to nothing about the Christian life, doctrine, and bearing fruit. The process of sanctification brings about maturity, a love for the Scriptures, and a desire to serve Him more adequately. That is, these things follow salvation.)
Note also that he never interjects faith into this equation! (Well, he used the word "believe." That sounds like "faith" to us.)
The decision to believe is based upon carnal logic and reasoning. (??? It does? How does Rev. Wade know this?
This is typical for Rev. Wade. He makes a summary declaration without reference, discussion, or documentation.)
Now, I have always been a fan of good apologetics but not as a replacement for scripture! (Stanley makes no statement about this supposed tension. Further, "apologetics" is defined as the branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines. "Christian doctrines" are derived from the Bible. One cannot have doctrines without the Bible. Rev. Wade makes a completely useless distinction.)
I believe that the bible is the word of God based on faith! ("I believe" and "faith" are nearly synonymous, and Rev. Wade uses both words, when he previously blasted Stanley for using the word "believe." Hmm.)
History only confirms my faith - not the other way around! (Another summary declaration without reference, discussion, or documentation. Again, we can read Stanley's statement. He did not mention history, but rather, reliability. He views the gospels as reliable.)
Let me be very clear. If you believe you are a follower of Jesus because you believe that historians did a good job of recording the gospel accounts, or at least one of them, you are not following Jesus at all. (Another summary declaration without reference, discussion, or documentation.
There is no question that the accounts in the Gospels are of real events. To accept them as real is a matter of faith, which is a key component of salvation. One cannot be a Christian if one believes the Bible to be fiction.
But Stanley's statement isn't about this.)
You are following history. Based on that nonsense, if someone comes along with better historical theories, you may quickly abandon what you thought you "believed." (Rev. Wade goes back to belief as if it's different than faith. Let's substitute terms: ...if someone comes along with better historical theories, you may quickly abandon what you thought you "had faith in." There is no substantial difference in meaning here.)
"Christianity does not rise or fall based upon our ability to prove that the bible is without error." - Andy Stanley
Strawmen arguments - one of the favorite ploys of the false teacher. No one of sound doctrine is making this argument. It is not our job, nor Andy Stanley's, to PROVE anything! (??? That's exactly what the field of apologetics is!)
Get over yourself! Pastor, if you approach your work as trying to convince someone, you will fail every time! (Irony alert. That is the exact purpose of Rev. Wade's article.)
Your job is to present the gospel and let the Holy Spirit draw the lost, period, full stop. (Another summary declaration without reference, discussion, or documentation.
Whose job? Andy Stanley's? Does Stanley do something more than this? In what way, and how is it in error? Why is Stanley obligated to "full stop?" What does this even mean, and what in the world is Rev. Wade so worked up about?)
I did not believe in the inerrancy of scripture and then was saved. (Anecdotal. Rev. Wade's experience is irrelevant.
So is belief in inerrancy important or not important?)
That is asinine. The things of God were foolishness to me UNTIL I was saved. (Subject change. Rev. Wade is making a vague reference to 1Co. 1:18:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
"The things of God" is not "the message of the cross." The message of the cross is the Gospel. Paul was not talking about history, belief, faith, or the Bible.)
THEN, I realized by faith that God cannot be wrong and therefore, the bible is inerrant. (That is, belief.
Again we ask, is Stanley on the wrong side of this somehow? How is this relevant?)
The absolute truth of scripture is a godsend for us! It clears up all of the murkiness of the world. It removes all of the carnal shades of grey we like to coat our lives in. (No Christian would disagree. But this is not the subject.)
Christianity rises and falls by the insidious teachings of wolves like Andy Stanley because here is where faith gets shipwrecked. (No, Christianity does no such thing. Christianity is the outworking of the Gospel, a supernatural situation, of which the Bible testifies. Christianity does not depend in any way on the actions of false teachers.)
The lost do not need a history lesson. (Sigh. Stanley did not say this.)
They do not need to understand how the records of the period when Jesus walked the earth were much closer to the actual events then other widely accepted historical facts. (Upon what basis does Rev. Wade make this claim? Why is it relevant? What in the world is he talking about?)
This is what was always wrong with people like Ray Comfort trying to debate atheists without "using the bible." (??? He does this? What?)
Our entire faith is based upon Christ and John 1:1 declares He is His word! (And the Bible tells us this.
We are growing weary of watching Rev. Wade chase his tail. Is he ever going to actually teach the Bible, and make a coherent case about Stanley's error?)
People like Andy Stanley and Bill Johnson have spent their ministries trying to dismantle the authority and inerrancy of scripture because deep down they hate the word of God because it exposes them for the frauds they truly are.
"People were following Jesus 300 plus years before the bible was ever assembled." - Andy Stanley"
Another staple of the false teaching style of Andy Stanley is to make folksy, right sounding arguments that if you just dig a little deeper you see are silly. The first point is that we do not follow Jesus because of the bible. We follow Jesus based upon the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to make us born again. (A false choice. The Holy Spirit enlivens us to the truth. That truth is found in the Bible, a supernatural document. Rev. Wade is getting to the point of creating a muddled mess.)
It is the belief in the work of Christ and the cross that saves us. (Where did this information about the "work of Christ" and "the cross" come from? A historically trustworthy, God-inspired Bible.)
It is from that point on that we learn hopefully about the scriptures to further develop us and grow us into the likeness of Christ. Before we were saved, we sought our answers from the world and after, we ought to be pursuing them within the word of God. (Well of course. So where is the problem? Paul wrote,
Ro. 10:14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
What is the content of this preaching? The Gospel. And what is the source of this Gospel? The Bible. This is not to deny the illumination of the Holy Spirit, but only to assert that the historically reliable Supernatural Bible which tells us about the Gospel, combined with the supernatural Holy Spirit to effect salvation.)
The entirety of what is today called the bible was written within one generation of the life Christ lived on earth, so the preaching of the gospel was first or secondhand information, not hundreds of years removed. (Stanley is referring to the canon, which is a different subject than the existence of NT Scripture.
When the Bereans heard the Gospel, what was their response? Did they respond to the Holy Spirit and gain faith? Nope:
Ac. 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Paul's message was from the Scriptures, i.e., the OT. The Bereans were noble, because they went to the Scriptures to ascertain the truth of Paul's Gospel.)
Even Peter referred to the writings of Paul as scripture just 30 years after the crucifixion:
"Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen." - 2Peter 3:14-18 (ESV)
As they do the other scriptures. Beloved, the notion that the early church was freewheeling it without the grounding of the word of God is simply inaccurate. (Stanley made no such claim. But his thrust is correct. The early church had only the OT and some of the various letters as they started getting passed around. No one owned an individual copy of the Scriptures, because there were no printing presses. Usually, one would need to go to the local synagogue to read them. So the early Church relied on the apostles' teaching [Ac. 2:42].
It's interesting to us how Rev. Wade has turned to arguing against himself. Previously he was opposed to the idea of the veracity of Scripture contributing to faith, but now he's opposed to the idea that the early Church did not rely on Scripture. Hmm.)
Be very very wary of folksy arguments in sermons designed to get you to disbelieve. Realize how dangerous these teachings are. They will lead to untold amounts of people basing their belief that they are saved upon carnal wisdom and the logic of man. Dear Lord, forgive us. The final quote is probably the worst however:
"Is there a case to be made for the inerrancy of scripture? Absolutely and if you give me three weeks of your undivided attention, I can make that case. But is this view of the bible essential in order to be a follower of Jesus, no." - Andy Stanley
The final trait of Stanley false teachings is to try and parse what he just said so he can claim cover from criticism. Those that are in the business of defending heretics will declare, see, he said that there is a case for the inerrancy of scripture! In context of course, this declaration means nothing. Once again, we see Andy insisting that he must convince you of something that can only be gleaned supernaturally through God. (Rev. Wade doesn't seem to understand the statement. Stanley did not claim that he needed to explain inerrancy, but rather that understanding inerrancy does not come to bear on being a follower of Christ.)
The apex of this horrible teaching is his declaration that we do not need to believe in the inerrancy of scripture to be a follower of Jesus and that is blasphemous heresy. (Another summary declaration without reference, discussion, or documentation.)
Jesus Himself declared quite matter of factly - why do you bother to call me Lord if you do not do as I say. (Hooray, our first [and last] Scripture quote, though unreferenced. Too bad Rev. Wade doesn't explain it or tell us how it comes to bear on Stanley's statement.)
We can only assume Andy's response would be that he believes one of the gospels is a true statement of events that actually happened. (Based on a single sentence in Stanley's sermon, divorced of context, and without regard for anything else Stanley may have preached over his years as a pastor, Rev. Wade isolates it and regards it as the whole of what Stanley believes.
This is intellectually bankrupt.)
Realize that his statement here essentially says that one can be a follower of Christ but not believe anything He actually said! (Sigh. Rev. Wade just keeps piling assertions atop his first mischaracterization to the point that he has now constructed a tower of Babel edifice that bears no resemblance to what Stanley said.)
He will be producing a congregation filled with people who do not actually believe that all scripture is God-breathed and useful for training in righteousness. (Our second Scripture fragment, also unreferenced. Rev. Wade has finally made a relevant statement about Stanley's preaching, and we agree. Any minimization of Scripture carries the danger of eventually negating all of it.)
A church filled with people who claim they follow Christ; they just do not have any faith in what He has said. Wow.
Beloved, I would hope by now you have realized that Andy Stanley needs to marked and avoided. He is not harmless. His teachings are straight from the pit of hell and designed for a singular purpose - to lead people away from Christ and His word. Of course, it is not just Andy Stanley as he is only the product of a generation of preachers brought up on Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Church heresies and the mega-church mentality of seeker-friendly theories of church growth. Under these false teachings, preachers become cult of personality men who wield great power over the sheep they are supposed to tend to. I know the haters of discernment will insist that we need unity at the cost of doctrine, but I will not hold the hand of Andy Stanley while he leads people to hell. I will not sing Kumbaya with someone who thinks so little of God's word. I will mark them. I will avoid them. I will advise you to do the same.
"Full stop" is the UK version of "period". I don't know why it's called that, and I'm from the UK.
ReplyDelete