Atlanta megachurch pastor Andy Stanley has got a bunch of conservative Christians all riled up with his most recent sermon series Who Needs God. The series is quite obviously apologetic in nature; Stanley’s stated purpose is to convince the growing number of religious skeptics, the “Nones,” to reconsider faith in God. In the series he tries to deconstruct what he (rightly) believes to be erroneous and harmful portraits of and arguments for God. One particular sermon in the series, The Bible Told Me So, has roused a great deal of ire because Stanley argues that the historical event of Jesus’ resurrection, and not the written document that records that event (the Bible), is the foundation of the Christian faith.

Conservative, Bible-believing Christians stormed social media with their polemical pitchforks and torches, eager to do battle with this “heresy.” Some responses have been angry and inflammatory while others have been more calm and reasoned. As someone who both has a very high view of scripture (just ask my fellow seminarians) and also follows Stanley’s ministry semi-closely, I am a bit perplexed by all of the backlash and I’m convinced that his critics are either not listening to him very closely or they are intentionally misrepresenting him. For example, Dr. David Prince, in one of the more widely-shared critiques of Stanley’s approach, accuses Stanley of “liberalism.” He writes,

“Theological liberals have always attempted to liberate Jesus from the Scriptures. Stanley argues that our faith is based on the resurrection and not the Bible. Severing the Scriptures from the resurrection is the very thing that Jesus said could not be done, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31).”

This critique is problematic in two ways. First, the scripture he uses to proof-text his point has been ripped out of its context and misapplied. It is taken from Jesus’ parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). The audience Jesus was addressing in that parable is Jews, for whom the Hebrew scriptures (Moses and the Prophets) were already considered authoritative. Compare this with Paul’s evangelistic address to a predominantly non-Jewish audience in Acts 17:22-34. Paul does not appeal to the authority of scripture per se, but to the historical event of Jesus’ resurrection. (When Paul did evangelize Jewish audiences, he did appeal to the scriptures (Acts 17:1-3). In other words, Paul adapted his message to his audience.) If Stanley’s audience was primarily Jewish with an a priori commitment to the authority of scripture, Prince’s point would carry more weight. As it stands, however, that is not the case.

Secondly, if anyone actually listens to Stanley on a regular basis, they’ll see that he is decidedly NOT attempting to “liberate Jesus from the Scriptures,” and certainly not in the way that the theological liberalism of the past has been wont to do. Theological liberalism has historically denied both the historical reliability of the New Testament documents as well as the bodily resurrection of Jesus. In this series (and others), Stanley does quite the opposite. Stanley’s argument is that the New Testament documents ARE historically reliable, and therefore believable, accounts of Jesus’ life, teaching, death and resurrection. This is literally the opposite conclusion of theological liberalism.

To take it a step further, Stanley makes it abundantly clear, both in this series and others, that he himself upholds biblical authority and he does so precisely because the historically verifiable Jesus does so. He says this over and over; it’s a common refrain in his sermons. For example, he affirms a literal Adam and Eve in this way. He will often say something like, “Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection. He also seemed to believe in the Hebrew scriptures. If someone can predict their own death and resurrection, I’m just going to go with whatever they say.” In doing that, Stanley affirms his own belief in the authority of scripture.

The point of all of this is that Stanley is making an apologetic case. He rightly argues that the first gentile Christians came to faith not because they first believed in the authority of scripture, but because they believed the reports that Jesus had risen from the dead. On that basis, they also came to believe in the authority of scripture. In short, Stanley is not attacking the authority of scripture, he is simply helping skeptics to approach the idea in a new way.


42 Comments

  1. This is extremely well written. Thank you so much for bringing clarity! Not sure where you’re headed after graduation, but am blessed with so young a mind with so deep a thought. Wonderful. Look forward to learning more from you, Thomas, keep going!

    Like

    1. thanks for a well thought out response . I have listened to Andy Stanley for a while and believe he is firmly based in the scriptures but moreover, firmly believing what Jesus actually taught… as opposed to what modern “traditions” are holding people to.

      Like

  2. Thank you for this post. I am just an ordinary Christian, but even I knew the intent of Stanley’s message in that series, and to whom it was intended. I’ve been listening to him (off and on) long enough to know his heart in this. I am sad to see many Christians in leadership positions completely miss what is plain to me, and then publicly shame him.

    Like

  3. Obviously Andy discovered the Resurrection through the Bible (Matthew,Mark,Luke,and John.) I am a Bible Believer and I heard all these sermons and they were perfect for the audience to whom he was speaking.

    Like

  4. I also really appreciate your thoughts here. I do listen regularly To Andy. I know that it would be easy for people to jump to conclusions if they don’t listen to even entire sermons let alone entire series. You have accurately and fairly characterized how he regularly addresses these issues. Thank you!

    Like

  5. Thank you for speaking out in defense of this man whose heart is so clearly to bring people in a relationship with Jesus. It is so sad to see how cannabalistic Christians can be.

    Like

  6. Everyone with the pitchforks out are exactly the types of Christians that will NEVER reach who Andy is trying to reach. You can find fault in everything or you can love and realize that bringing people in our back into fairh actually isn’t a bad thing. And please don’t start with that isn’t really Faith. Somewhat like the Pharasies?

    Like

  7. Hi Thomas, Thanks for your thoughts. However, you have stated essentially what is pretty obvious.

    The real issue with neo evangelical teachers is their focus on trying to convert the church into a place created for nonbelievers. That, instead of focusing on making disciples in the church. Of course that involved nonbelievers, but to twist it to this extent is wrong.

    The central issue is separating God from the Scriptures, by teaching messages that focus on “me” far too much in the text. This focus very often, subtly yet clearly, removes the gospel and Jesus’ essence outside and away from what is supposed to be the preaching of the word. I think the Word incarnate would disagree with this. His commands to the preacher differ drastically from these man centered means. The issue is not success, but obedience the the Word Himself.

    Like

    1. The mission statement of our church is “To lead people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ”. That means our church is a place for someone who isn’t a believer as well as someone like me who has been a Christian for 40+ years. We have an environment called Starting point for people who have questions, we have small groups for Christians to grow and we are encouraged not only to serve at church but also in our community. I have been a member of North Point for 16 years and have been challenged to dig deeper and to grow and apply God’s word in my every day life. I have watched life change occur and have been moved to tears by the baptism testimony. People on the outside see a large church and sit back and attack Andy’s sermons. I sit on the inside marveling at what God is doing each and every week. I heard the sermon in question and totally understood that Andy was saying that the early church had no Bible but yet they believed in Jesus because of who he was. If we all would use our time, talents and energy trying to reach people and effect change in our communities, we wouldn’t have time to critique music styles, worship or split hairs over sermons.

      Like

      1. But the early church did have Scripture… what else did Peter use in Acts 1 and 6? And see the thing is, is if he can’t see that, and you can’t see that he can’t see that, then you can be using all the time talents and energy on things that won’t stand the test of time. The Bereans (Acts 17) received the word joyfully from an apostle and still searched Scripture to see if it were true. If they tested the words of an apostle against Scripture shouldn’t we of our pastor’s/teachers?

        Like

      2. This is in reply to Greg. Of course the early Christians had the Old Testament scriptures. I believe Andy’s point was that they did not yet have the New Testament scriptures. They may have relied on Old Testament scriptures (if they were Jews) but they certainly relied on eyewitness reports before the New Testament scriptures were ever available.

        Like

      3. Susan, I appreciate the clarification and I get the point, in John 4 the villagers believed in Jesus by the woman’s testimony before hearing from Him directly and believing. But I still think it’s a mistake to say that Gentiles didn’t didn’t have a Bible/didn’t use the Scripture available, that the OT was only used/relied on by the Jews; the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah and in Acts 17 there were both Jews and Greek worshipers. The issue with the Gentiles being under the Law was then cleared up in Acts 15… even there it was a letter that was sent with. If Jesus could open the understanding of those on the road to Emaus and show all the scriptures concerning Him, the Holy Spirit could certainly do the same with the gentile believers then and now.

        Now I agree that testimony is important and should replace bible thumping/or rote use of, any day… but to say the early church had nothing to use scripture wise, as the gospels/epistles weren’t yet available, is wrong.

        Like

  8. “The audience Jesus was addressing in that parable is Jews, for whom the Hebrew scriptures (Moses and the Prophets) were already considered authoritative.” That doesn’t matter. The authority of God’s word still applies to everyone. The President of the United States still has authority over you even if you have not accepted him as president or even know who he is. Likewise, the word of God through Moses and the Prophets still has authority over atheists even if they have not accepted them as authoritative or know what those words are.

    The church of the living God is to be a pillar and a buttress of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) holding out the word of life to a crooked and depraved generation (Philippians 2:14-16). How will anyone know that word unless they are told (Romans 10:14-15)? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Romans 10:17). You cannot be saved unless you hear the word of God (Romans 1:16).

    “I’m convinced that his critics are either not listening to him very closely or they are intentionally misrepresenting him.” On the contrary, I don’t believe you’re listening very closely. Stanley specifically said the Bible is not the foundation of our faith. It is. Stanley’s historical presentation is also wrong. There are credible Bible historians who have refuted this, and time will not be kind to Stanley’s version of history.

    Like

    1. I am a Christian. The Bible is A foundation of my faith. I believe it. But what if I didn’t have a Bible? What if I couldn’t read? Relying on what other Christians told me and what they read to me would be my source of knowing more and more about Jesus.

      Like

  9. Thank you so much for this article. There are too many people twisting Andy’s words and drawing conclusions from random statements taken out of context. Most of the anti-Stanley works that I’ve seen are totally misrepresenting what Stanley has been saying in this series and in other series. I’ve been attending his church and heard these in person. Your assessment is correct and Stanley is in no way undermining the authority of scripture.

    Like

  10. Mr Hughes, Is it possible you’ve misinterpreted Romans 1:16? I find no imperative to obtain salvation by hearing or reading “The Word of God.” Actually the verse has no mention of those words. I do find an affirmation that we receive salvation from God through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Gospel, as the Good News of Jesus’ birth, death, & resurrection. I would appreciate knowing the authority you reference which denies the historical compilation of The New Testament.

    Like

  11. I would refer you to Dr James White @droakley1689(twitter) /The Dividing Line /Alpha and Omega Ministries (YouTube), Sept 8, 2016, for a concise review of what Pastor Stanley is in error on.

    Like

    1. Thanks Kip. This is what I heard re: early Christianity: 1. Ignacius wrote of the cross in the second century. 2. Insists The Bible has authority over all cultures, but only offers a belabored critical construct of Ravi Zaccharias as his basis. (I’ve spent many years in the Middle East with both Sunni & Shia. I assure you they accept no authority of the New Testament.) 3. Accurately quotes from 1 Corinthians. However, does he deny Christianity had begun and flourished prior to Ignacius, & prior to Paul’s letters? Prior to any New Covenant Scripture? As Andy accurately stated Christianity began with The Ressurection.

      Like

      1. Christianity (the new covenant) began with the last supper…though you could also argue that it began with Jesus’ birth (John 1; Luke 2)

        Like

      1. Re: Recent comment from Greg citing Acts 1, 6, & 17 as examples of Apostles (Peter?) using Scriptures during the 1st century. I had thought to be clear in speaking of New Testament Scripture. Certainly Jewish Scripture predicting The Messiah existed & was used by early Christianity.

        Like

      2. David, considering your comment, I think it’s an interesting point that all scripture, technically, is Jewish as there isn’t a book written by a gentile author, seeing as gentiles are grafted into the tree, as it’s said, contrary to nature.

        Anyway, I do appreciate your clarification.

        Like

  12. You know, Scott, you need to reach folks before you can disciple them. If we worried more about loving them and not sniping at one another, we’d probably be much further down the road in that.

    Like

  13. Jesus often addressed his Jewish audience, I am paraphrasing ” you have heard it said, but I tell you” according to skeptics he would have been criticizing the scripture. In fact that was one of the reasons religious leaders choose to get rid of him. We have to look at everything and not just pieces. That is what the unbeliever does. Andy is a leader worth following, who follows Jesus.

    Like

  14. Thanks so much for writing this! The first thing I said when I heard the message was, “Oh, this is going to tick some church people off” but I know the church’s mission and history so I was tracking with him, keeping in mind he is a fisher of men. In order to want to read the scriptures you have to first be open to it. Andy just removed the block. I already have heard stories of others who, because of the message, are now open to investigate their faith, which will undoubtedly lead them back to scripture. That is Andy’s mission, to lead people into a growing relationship with Christ and everything He does is done through that lens. Quite frankly, the “churched” people who are upset are already insiders and their eternity is secure. The worst the message could do to them is what we are seeing, cause criticism. For the unchurched, it’s a way in! I like those odds. It’s a message worth the risk of ruffling believer feathers.

    Like

  15. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul is writing to the church in Corinth, comprised of people converted from a Gentile background. He says, “I delivered to you as of first importance…. that [Christ] was raised on the third day in accordance with THE SCRIPTURES.” Paul says “in accordance with the scriptures” in v. 4 BEFORE he refers to eyewitnesses in vv. 5-7.

    Like

    1. Your absolutely right…Paul does connect the events of Jesus’ death and resurrection to the scriptures. A couple of thoughts, though.

      1.) Purpose and context: As you said, 1 Corinthians was addressed gentile converts. In other words, these are already believers. This is not an inherently evangelistic piece; he is not trying to persuade them to believe.

      2.) Emphasis is exegesis. Your use of caps lock seems to place the emphasis on “in accordance with the scriptures.” However, given that the focus of the chapter is on the resurrection of the dead, I would submit that a better emphasis would be, “I delivered to you as of first importance…. that [CHRIST] WAS RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY in accordance with the scriptures.” In other words, for Gentiles, the resurrection of Jesus would validate the truth and authority of the Jewish scriptures, not the other way around.

      Like

      1. “for Gentiles, the resurrection of Jesus would validate the truth and authority of the Jewish scriptures, not the other way around.”

        Were there Gentiles who lived before Christ who believed in the truth and authority of OT scripture about Christ?

        Like

  16. After 16+ years attending Northpoint and listening to Andy’s messages, I can assure you, those of us who understand and embrace the mission “to lead people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ” fully understand his Who Needs God message.

    Like

  17. Thank you very much for writing this. I’ll be completely honest. I am rather new to a life of following Christ & I began in a local church where I live who implemented Andy Stanley’s Starting Point series as a class which I attended. The description was basically a class for those new to faith, with no faith at this point or who are coming back to faith after for whatever reason walking away. I already had a good handle on how my heart felt about Jesus but there was so much I didn’t know & wanted desperately to learn along with others in that group & many different groups to follow all coming from very different backgrounds & walks of life. I will be honest, there are volumes I don’t know & I’m not at the point I can quote scriptures or give a complete history lesson, but I am working very hard at taking bible classes as well as reading & reflecting on it. I have learned enough to know that when picking & choosing verses to recite to people to make certain points..you can’t take them out of context. You must consider who the writer was speaking to, where they were, what was happening at the time & what the intent of the message was to those listening. I have been around enough Christians to know I have been made to feel inferior or even unworthy when they mention certain things & I cannot confirm or deny them which is in part why I took the class to begin with. I had no idea on that 1st day who Andy Stanley was & almost all the other people there had not either. But during those classes I saw people who had no or little faith open themselves & their hearts to hearing the message that most were skeptical to hear. Most having negative experiences with a lot of what they were told were good Christians in the past. I am not here to judge or even say who’s right or wrong but I can tell you that many many people are being brought into faith & into relationships with Christ who would have never considered it before. I’ve seen positive life changes being made 1st hand which has now opened the door to them & started a hungar in them to dig deep into the word & build & learn to trust our Lord. Again something they would not have been open to before. I believe as some others have said how important it is to reach more people & you must 1st get their attention & bring them into the church then plant a seed in them that God will use to increase their desire to learn more & voluntarily begin a walk of faith. What can a church do if its sitting empty. If that’s not what God would want I’m not sure the point of any of it. I believe & I’m sure someone will say I’m wrong that in this case , the most important thing is bringing people in….grabbing them & then teaching them from that point what a christian life that follows Jesus & the scriptures looks like. Like I said I don’t know much yet & that’s ok because I am eager to learn & have accepted Christ as my savior & even got baptized last month. I serve along with my 10 year old daughter at our church, I continue to take all the bible classes they offer & see every week & yes that includes days that are not Sunday how lives are being positively changed & saved. So if Andy Stanley has figured out a way to bring more people in for that to happen I’m not sure that if you’re a true Christian & follower of Christ why that should be a problem. Am I wrong that I’ve been told that this is part of our purpose here? I thank you again for writing this in his defense & also thank Andy Stanley himself because he is helping bring people to God that many many others have already tried to do and have failed. I pray for us all & that in some way we can all come together & if there would be less critiquing of each other especially when a heart is good & we’d instead put our effort & focus into reaching everyone instead of only surrounding ourselves & patting each other on the back for already being in the family…. (Again not stereotyping at all….basing the comment on personal experience)…. We might actually spark change to take place & help those people who haven’t experienced the light of God, soften their hearts & change this world one life at a time & by doing so ultimately spreading & praising the word of God! I pray for us all every night & will continue to & continue to do all I can to grow in faith & knowledge of the word of God.

    Like

    1. Wendy,
      Thanks so much for your comment and your honesty! I’m sorry other Christians have made you inferior or unworthy simply because you don’t know as much scripture as they do. I am quite confident that was never Jesus’ intention. Keep up the good work! God will honor your faithfulness.

      Like

    2. Ms Boyd, Thank you for your comments. Those of us who claim some profound knowledge would always do well to humbly acknowledge our “wisdom” is pitifully limited. You’ve begun a wonderful journey with an open heart and mind. Mizpah.

      Like

  18. Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. I attend Browns Bridge Church, where Andy Stanley serves as our pastor. Andy has been very clear about the purpose of this series- to encourage those who have left the Christian church for a variety of reasons, to reconsider. I have been present for each of the messages in this series. My family has, as I’m sure many others have, been rocked, when a family member decides, for whatever reason, to abandon their faith. This series has allowed a fresh, new dialogue for my husband to present to his brother. The conversations that have taken place in the past few weeks have been very encouraging to our family. I think sometimes, as followers of Jesus, we need to allow the door to be opened without immediately jumping on the bandwagon to pick apart and tear down the messenger. This is a message of hope for so many. I serve in the preschool environment at BBC. We have seen first hand the number of adults who are coming to hear this message, who are reconsidering their reasons for leaving the church. While they are hearing Andy’s message, we are in the children’s environments, pouring love and truth into their children. We are teaching them biblical truth. God made them. God loves them. Jesus wants to be their friend, forever. Thank you, Thomas, for a rational response. God bless you.

    Like

  19. I was an Atheist before I started listening to Andy. I came to believe in Jesus and the authority of the bible while under his leadership.

    While the critics are making points in the lives of churched people, Andy is making a difference in the lives of unchurched ones like me.

    Like

    1. Preach it Chris. Clear and simple. Welcome to the family. Don’t be put off by the pharisees and hypocrites that call themselves Christians. Every family has that crazy uncle that nobody listens to. 😉

      Like

  20. Thank you for this very reasoned response. While I do not line up with Andy on any number of things, he has helped me a pastor and teacher to engage with current culture in ways that I was not taught to do in Seminary. When I repeatedly see leaders (especially Southern Baptist ones) call him a heretic and discount everything he says because he says things they don’t agree with and with those hyper-conservative fundamentalist believers, virtually EVERYTHING IS ALL OR NOTHING. If you do not fall in lock step with their views then you will be accused of not having a high enough view of Scripture or that you are a universalist liberal…It all is very tiring and makes me think that God’s heart is breaking over the lost and THIS is what we spend all our energy fighting about? Amongst ourselves as Christ-followers? Frankly, it makes me think of a quote one of my mentors, Dr. Michael Henderson from Asbury University said, “I can’t stand the guys, who minimize and criticize the other guys whose enterprise has made them rise above the guys who minimize and criticize.” With a large majority of people absolutely lost and far from God, could we put more intensity in presenting Christ to a lost world instead of affirming the worst of who Christ-followers are already perceived (negative, against everything). “Believe as I believe–no more, no less;
    That I am right (and no one else) confess.
    Feel as I feel, think only as I think;
    Eat what I eat, and drink but what I drink.
    Look as I look, do always as I do;
    And then–and only then–I’ll fellowship with you.”
    It’s this ALL OR NOTHING mindset that has turned an entire generation against Christianity and the denominational church. LOST PEOPLE MATTER TO GO! FOUND PEOPLE FIND PEOPLE. SAVED PEOPLE SERVE PEOPLE. SHARE YOUR STORY OF LIFE CHANGE and let God do what only He can do…change lives!

    Like

  21. Thanks for this well written discussion of the controversy surrounding this sermon series. I’m dismayed that so many Christian leaders feel it necessary to criticize and condemn what Andy Stanley is doing. Fortunately, I think the people that Andy is trying to reach don’t listen to these “leaders “, so In the end the people who need to hear Andy’s message will hear it. I pray God blocks this criticism from the ears/eyes of thise who do need to hear this message. I pray that those who are Jesus followers will focus on how we can best reach those who don’t have a relationship with Jesus instead of tearing each other down. The enemy of our souls just loves it when we get so off focus.

    Like

  22. So, we all love Andy Stanley. He is our Billy Graham. To offer a contrasting conclusion upon Andy’s “The Bible Told Me So” sermon will get you labeled as an old timer who is ready to pitchfork the whole unbelieving world -Christians included. However, Andy had to know that what he was saying would be controversial, and in that framework, he certainly knew there would be internet discussions, such as these, which question his assertions. Therefore, let’s look at what he said. Andy is speaking on the most serious of issues, which is salvation. At its most fundamental level, Andy’s “The Bible Told Me So” message concludes by claiming that you don’t have to believe in the Old Testament to be saved. For example, if you don’t believe that God created Adam and Eve, no problem. If you don’t believe in the reliability of the Bible’s account of Noah and the flood, then again, no problem. If you don’t believe in the Exodus story, no problem. And so on and so on. You come to understand that your salvation is not dependent on whether the Old Testament is true, reliable, and defensible. Rather, all you need to believe is in the eyewitnesses who saw Jesus die on the cross and rise from the dead. That’s it. What is the problem then? Well first, lets make the following observation: The angles, demons, and Satan all believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died on the cross, and that He rose from the grave. Even in a historical context, those beings believe that such a history is true. However, a belief in the historical context of Jesus or believe in the reliability of eyewitnesses who saw Jesus rise from the dead doesn’t mean that those beings, or you, are saved. Second, let’s make another observation as to what Horrocks says about the necessity of scripture for salvation. Horrocks (the blogger) says that we don’t need scripture, or at least the Old Testament Scripture, for salvation because at one point in time Paul taught the Gentiles about salvation without “citing” any scripture. While Horrocks’ observation is true, it is misleading. The reason Horrocks statement is misleading is because it confuses an “observation” of Paul’s “style of teaching” with Andy’s “substantive conclusion” that a belief in Old Testament Scripture is not necessary for salvation. To explain further, Andy is not arguing that he does not need to cite scripture when preaching a sermon. If that were the issue of Andy’s “Bible Told Me So Message,” then Horrocks’ observation of Paul’s teaching style would be comparable. However, Andy is not talking about preaching styles or whether scripture should be used while preaching. What Andy is saying is that the Old Testament scripture is not fundamental to an understanding of, or need for, salvation. Andy’s conclusion concering scripture is certainly not what Paul said to the Gentiles. Let’s make another observation that is contrary to what Horrocks has observed. Look at Jesus’ parable of Lazarus. Through that parable Jesus is teaching all generations, including the Jews of that time, that if you disavow the truth of the old scripture, your personal belief that a person (even Jesus) rose from the dead will not lead you to salvation. Jesus’ teaching makes sense when, again, we reflect on the fact that, like us, demons and Satan believe that Jesus rose from the dead. And we can expose more of the issue if we ask the follwing question. If Andy is wrong, then why do we need the old testiment scriptures to be saved? The answer is that the Old Testament, through all of its revelations, points to something ongoing within each of us that will destroy our intended identity forever. Those scriptures give us the reason why we need something more than a simple belief that a historical person rose from the dead. The Old Testament points to a need for something or someone to save us from what is taking place inside us. Before we can believe in Jesus’s power to save us, we must first believe that we need to be saved. Only in the old scriptures do we become convinced of that need. Such was the belief of the very first Christians, and in that belief they continued to use old scripture to preach the gospel, using Noah as one example of God’s desire to save. In conclusion, Andy is a wonderful man, preacher, and teacher. I am a better Christ follower because of him. But for someone so gifted in knowledge of the gospel and in teaching, I cannot now come to an agreement that what he is currenlty teaching is true. Even if such teaching should bring more and more people to the knowledge of Christ’s love, I doubt such a messaget will do much to convict them of their need to repent from sin and seek, not just the man who rose from the grave, but a Savior.

    Like

  23. Mr. Horrocks, it is not true that Paul did not use Scripture to appeal to the Gentiles.

    Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.”

    All of this is Scripture, Paul’s argument is saturated with it. He understands the power of Gods Word and does not abandon it in his apologetics to the Gentiles.

    Psalm 124:8 Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth.

    Psalm 148:13 Let them praise the name of the Lord, for his name alone is exalted; his majesty is above earth and heaven.

    Isaiah 66:1 Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.”

    Jeremiah 23:23, 24 “Am I a God at hand, says the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD.

    Psalm 50:12 “If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s