Thread: Superstar Mega-church Son of A Preacher Man Andy Stanley: Scripture Can't Be Defended

Originally Posted by wheeze

I read it fuego and Stanley is really reaching out there to get his version of the gospel across. To base your theology on the resurrection and not the inerrant word that speaks of and illuminates the resurrection leaves Stanley lacking in his theology. This surprises me considering who his dad is. The one thing he neglects to address is the influence of the the Holy Spirit and His role in organizing and completing the canon as we know it today. Personally I think he is grasping at spiritual straws....

Well the resurrection is in the Word, and when you use it you are using the 'inerrant Word' as your basis. There certainly isn't any other evidence of it other than in the Bible.

I suppose the resurrection is mentioned in some of the gospel accounts and letters that weren't included in the Bible. It's possible to believe in the resurrection without believing that the Bible is the Word of God and in particular without accepting the canon as it is today. Makes it far less solid but still possible.

It's not hard to predict the next few years:

1. More attacks or watering down of the Word (even from Christians like Stanley).
2. Increased discrimination against Christians.
3. Condemnation for Christians for "intolerance."
4. Revising America's heritage to erase any Biblical or Christian influence
5. Portraying America's history as evil and not to be studied in school or admired in any way.
6. Christians lured into greater wordliness to the point of preferring the world to the Word.
7. Addictions on the rise, even among Christians.

Will this all drive us to our knees for revival? That's the question.

I've been thinking about this for a while and it's not really about Bookman's latest post. I think there's a culture on this forum for seeing the future negatively and posts like the one above reinforces that culture. Yes, that can all happen and worse but it will not necessarily. Focusing on the darkness on the horizon can function as an antidote against the world's blissfull ignorance of such things but it can become too much, until posters literally try to one up each other in their renditions of it. We should at least pray more to God to stop it than we sit here and paint it.

Originally Posted by Colonel

I've been thinking about this for a while and it's not really about Bookman's latest post. I think there's a culture on this forum for seeing the future negatively and posts like the one above reinforces that culture. Yes, that can all happen and worse but it will not necessarily. Focusing on the darkness on the horizon can function as an antidote against the world's blissfull ignorance of such things but it can become too much, until posters literally try to one up each other in their renditions of it. We should at least pray more to God to stop it than we sit here and paint it.

Well said. I actually agree with you. Sometimes I have to take myself in hand and remind myself that as a believer in the sovereignty of God, I have nothing to fear.

That's a useful thought, that God is able to keep those who walk with him and save them into heaven come what may, that is the beginning of fearlessness. The fear of the Lord rather than the fear of men and circumstances is the beginning of wisdom.

On the other hand.. we're told to expect some very bad nastiness coming our way.

not unreasonable to be aware of what's going on.

Originally Posted by Colonel

We all know ... that the Bible we have cannot be said to be inerrant, for the simple reason that it is based on several sources that differ from each other.

If the Bible we have isn't inerrant then we cannot say (for sure) that any bit of it is not in errant. We have to chuck it all away and we have nothing on which to base what we believe.

A really good read, recent boook on the subject is https://www.crossway.org/books/the-innerant-word-hcj/. One of the chapters is "Do We Have a Trustworthy Text?"

As an example, the modern translations give the height of Goliath as 9'9. The 200 BC septuagint translation that Jesus and Paul quoted, as 6'9. Some manucripts as 8'3. Two of the three are wrong and therefore errant. Which is the correct version ? We can't be so sure of that. So whatever translation you are reading does contain errors, including at the level of what manuscripts it uses for each verse.