Andy Stanley: The Bible Told Me So

-
Andy Stanley has inspired the rearranging of many electrons across internet pathways in the last few days.  He said some truly troubling things in a sermon designed to encourage young people to remain in or return to the Christian faith, a noble and necessary effort.  He stated that the Christian Faith was not based on what the Bible says, but on the fact that Christ was raised from the dead.  He flatly stated that the Bible does not have to be completely true in all that it says in order for Christianity to be accepted.  According to Stanley, the Christian faith is based primarily on the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles and Disciples and their interaction with Jesus Christ. 

In an effort to be charitable, Stanley is trying to reach skeptics on the basis of the historical reliability of the New Testament writings.  He points out that these documents are based on very carefully recorded eyewitness testimony, and they are basically reliable accounts of historical events like Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.  All of this is true, but Stanley stops too quickly in his argument. 

Stanley follows a basic argument that I have been exposed to ever since I first read Josh McDowell, J. Gresham Machen, and R. C. Sproul.  The linear argument goes like this:

1.       The Bible is good history.  (Stanley is right with us here.)
2.       We can trust what the Bible says about Jesus because it is based on eyewitness testimony. These eyewitnesses were willing to die for their faith. (Stanley stays with us.)
3.       Jesus claimed to be God. He said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Thomas said, “My Lord and my God,” and Jesus did not correct him (John 20:26-31).  (Stanley hangs on.)
4.       Jesus worked miracles and proved Himself to be God.  (Stanley is still there.)
5.       Jesus affirmed the truth of God’s Word. He said, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). He said, in prayer to God, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17).  Christ affirmed the truthfulness of the Old Testament.  (Stanley does not mention this.)
6.       Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to help the apostles remember and truthfully relate the events in the Bible (John 16:13-15).  Christ affirmed the truth of the New Testament.  (Stanley doesn’t bring this up either.)
7.       We have a Bible we can believe to be completely true based on Christ’s authority and teaching.  We can trust what the Bible says. It gives us God’s truth and equips us for faith and service (2 Tim. 3:15-17).  (Here’s where Stanley ‘gets off the bus’ on this trip.)
To be repetitive, the conclusion that the Bible is true in all it says comes from the authority and teachings of Jesus Himself.  We can’t ‘wiggle out’ of that.  We can’t ‘side step’ it.  We can’t ignore it.  If what Stanley affirms to be true is in fact true, and we take a close look at the implications of those affirmations, then we have a Bible which is true in all it says by the force of logic.

But what of the skeptic who would embrace the core facts that Christianity is based on without accepting a Bible that contains no error?  I admit the theoretical possibility of a person being a Christian who does not accept the Bible to be true in all it says in the original manuscripts, to fail to do so would excludeC. S. Lewis from The Kingdom of God.  However, the greatest gathering of reformed theologians ever to get together said in The Westminster Confession of Faith:
By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.  (WCF 14.2)


Believing the Bible to be true in all it says certainly is a reasonable and logical conviction, one that should be embraced by all.  To fail to do so is problematic, and may indicate a heart not yet converted to Christ. 

We should pray for Stanley, but we must be both charitable and firm in our reactions.  He is on dangerous ground.


[It is beyond the scope of this post to address all of the issues Stanley brings up in the sermon.  Please see the posts under the search label “The Argument from Scripture” at the right for the answers to many of them.]



Addendum (10/4/2016):

 Andy Stanley has issued some clarifying statements here as of 9/30/16.  In his follow up article, he affirms inerrancy (the idea that the Bible is true in everything it teaches).  That is great.  He even talks about his interaction with Dr. Norman L. Geisler, a champion of inerrancy whose work has been of great benefit to me.  Stanley affirms 5, 6, and 7 above.

But the follow up article is still troubling.  He goes into great detail about the reasons he communicated the way he did in the original sermon.  He wants to reach those whose faith in the inerrancy of the Bible has been shaken or lost.  Again, this is a noble effort.

The problem is that he runs the risk of being a bit disingenuous.  If the Bible is true in all it says, and that logically flows from the first four items that Stanley affirms above (1-4), then we are hiding something from the unbeliever we are trying to reach with Stanley’s approach.  We are hiding the fact that the affirmation of the first four items logically necessitates that Bible is true in all it says.  We are doing that in order to reach an unbeliever with the gospel.

If I was persuaded of the truth of The Christian Faith by this approach, then I would feel like I had experienced a ‘bait and switch’ when I found out the rest of the story.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on...
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than ...
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr...
Read more