Andy Stanley vs Jeff Durbin debate on "unbelievable"

I do not see the need to offer a rejoinder, other than to say that I am glad to hear that you feel comfortable with engaging on these important matters, at such a great length. It is more important to win hearts than it is to win arguments.

God bless you, too, my brother!!!

1 Like

I had a similar reaction when I read Van Til’s, “Why I believe in God.” I read it. I read it again, and still didn’t exactly understand it.

I register my agreement there, absolutely. This is the reason I “lean” presuppositionalist, and seriously approach people with a presuppositionalist’s presupposition… that the unbeliever that I engage will not see the truth unless they want to.

The scripture that is overwhelming to me personal,y in this regard is from the Lazarus parable…

They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

And even Lazarus own resurrection, that some of the Jewish leaders did not seem able to refute, did not lead them toward belief…!

From this, I totally get why we cannot simply offer evidences without dealing with the blind and darkened heart.

And the evidence of the resurrection used in different places. And Paul’s own testimony… wherein God saw Paul converted not by having someone tell him to trust the Scripture, but by giving him an experience of evidence to his senses. Or Jesus giving proofs of his resurrection in Acts 1:3… why did he not just have prophets tell people to believe the Bible? Why resort to “evidences”?

Personally, I like Kierkegaard’s take when it comes the balance of evidence and dealing with presuppositional belief (though he wouldn’t have used those terms), he sounds a lot like where I find myself… totally acknowledging the problem in the human heart, and that ultimately it is a question of moral choice involved… but a moral choice made in relation to some kind of evidence… his quote below was his exposition of Mt 11:6, where John asks if Jesus is the one, and Jesus responds by pointing to evidences, But adds, “blessed is he who is not offended…” Kierkegaard focused on the “presuppositional” element, i.e., the personal choice to commit to Christ’s claims… but recognized that this choice was made necesssry due to the evidences presented…

In Christendom, there has been a different practice. There those enormous folios have been written that develop the demonstrations of the truth of Christianity. Behind these, the demonstrations and folios, we feel perfectly convinced ourselves and secure against all attack, because every demonstration and every folio end with: ergo, Christ was the one he claimed to be. By means of the demonstrations it is just as certain as 2+2 = 4 and as easy as putting one’s foot in a sock. With this irrefutable “ergo“ which directly clarifies the matter, the assistant professor and preacher bid defiance, and the missionary confidently goes forth to convert the heathen with the aid of this “ergo.“ But not Christ! He does not say: ergo I am the expected one; he says, after having referred to the demonstrations: blessed is he who is not offended at me. That is, he himself makes it clear that in relation to him there can be no question of any demonstrating, that we do not come to him by means of demonstrations, that there is no direct transition to becoming Christian, the demonstrations can at best serve to make a person aware, so that made aware he can now come to the point: whether he will believe or he will be offended… You see something inexplicable, miraculous (but no more); he himself says that it is a miracle – and you see before your eyes and individual human being. The miracle can demonstrate nothing, or if you do not believe him to be who he says he is, then you deny the miracle. The miracle can make aware – now you are in the tension and it depends upon what you choose, offense or faith; it is your heart that must be disclosed.

Andy Stanley’s error is a result of man questioning the word of God. It is a result of man being afraid of man rather than God. Placing man’s authority over God but all the while claiming that they do not do that. When you do not use the whole council of God, it doesn’t make sense. Everything becomes incoherent, and yes, that includes the resurrection.

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

@Wookin_Panub, or any of you in this thread who took an interest in the Stanley / Durbin exchange here, you should find this interview of interest. It is a “Word on Fire” interview with Catholic Bishop Robert Barron from just a couple days ago. He doesn’t mention Stanley, but he speaks of things that critics of Stanley would resonate with.

I have a lot of respect for Bishop Barron, so even while my inclinations still lie more on Stanley’s side, the Bishop has nonetheless given me more to think about on this.

1 Like

Interesting take from Rome’s perspective. I, myself do not like the terms “Judaizing” nor “Re-Judaizing”
My camp argues the sufficiency and the authority of scripture.

By “the word of God,” you mean the Bible?

I think I’m starting to sound like a one-trick pony. The Word of God is Jesus. So says the Bible.

Is the Bible trustworthy? Yes, although different people mean different things by that.

I’m not sure that Andy is dismissing the Old Testament outright. He uses the word “unhitch.” I don’t want put words in his mouth, but I would understand that to mean that it is New Testament teaching the “drives us” or “leads us,” rather than the Old Testament teaching. So it shouldn’t be discarded. But it doesn’t lead.

1 Like

And Jesus says the word of God is the Bible, so I’m afraid it isn’t quite that simple…

For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Not to mention, it is a bit more complicated even than that. So says the Bible…

  • (* At that time I stood between the LORD and you to declare to you the word of the LORD, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) (Deut 5:5 NIV)

  • Joshua said to the Israelites, “Come here and listen to the words of the LORD your God. (Josh 3:9 NIV)

  • But this word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God: (1 Kings 12:22 NIV)

  • He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, in accordance with the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher. (2 Kings 14:25 NIV)

  • That night the word of God came to Nathan, saying: (1 Chr 17:3 NIV)

  • Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel gathered around me because of this unfaithfulness of the exiles. And I sat there appalled until the evening sacrifice. (Ezra 9:4 NIV)

  • then hear the word of the LORD, O remnant of Judah. This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘If you are determined to go to Egypt and you do go to settle there, (Jer 42:15 NIV)

  • Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’’” (Matt 4:4 NIV)

  • “This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. (Luke 8:11 NIV)

  • He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” (Luke 11:28 NIV)

  • If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken. (John 10:35 NIV)

  • So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. (Acts 6:2 NIV)

  • ¶ So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7 NIV)

  • So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God. (Acts 18:11 NIV)

  • Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor 4:2 NIV)

  • Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Eph 6:17 NIV)

  • And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. (1 Th 2:13 NIV)

  • In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! (Heb 5:12 NIV)

  • ¶ I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. (Rev 1:9 NIV)

By “the Bible,” are you referring the the 66 books that we Protestants in the west understand to be the scriptural canon, some of the texts of which were not yet written when Jesus walked the earth?

You know what’s really, really, really frustrating? When people quote Ephesians 6:17 to support the argument that “word of God” means “the Bible” or scripture. Like, seriously, how the heck? The verse does not explicitly say scripture. It’s a completely circular to use that to support your contention! And so many people do that!

That verse notwithstanding, every single other verse you mentioned does not specifically mention scripture. When “the word of God” is coming to people, either directly or through someone else, it is not a written text.

1 Like

Shall I assume you’re conceding that “word of God” in the Bible does not in fact simply mean “Jesus”? (which was the only point in all the references I made, by the way.)

No.

Agreed that the vast majority of times the phrase is used does not refer to Scripture, but to the message from God (not Jesus, per se)… But I would call your attention again to the first reference I noted, that Jesus is accusing the Jews of nullifying part of the written law for the sake of their tradition… and he refers to said written law they were trying to nullify as “the word of God.”

1 Like

Ah, okay.

So let me clarify. The highest revelation of God is Jesus; he is the highest example of the “Word of God.” By being the “Word of God,” he does not disqualify other examples or…iterations (?) of God’s message.

I thought you were arguing for “the Word of God is Scripture, not Jesus.”

1 Like

Andy is a great pastor. I have attended his church more than a dozen years. He is doing a great work for the kingdom of God.

He is publicly as willing to disagree with some tenets of evangelicalism as I am, such as inerrancy, but he is impacting the lives of thousands and bringing them to a closer relationship with Jesus Christ.

4 Likes

Yeah - and most of our discussion around here was what you might suspect - a mix of supportive enthusiasts and critics. I particularly resonate with Stanley’s efforts to poke at “Biblicism” (I don’t remember if he uses that exact label) - but he really hammered it home how the Bible was a product of [or came after] the church and not vice versa. I didn’t mean to presume that you should necessarily be interested in all the noise made about him in yet another forum somewhere. But like you said … as time or interest may allow.

52 posts were split to a new topic: Should “Bible” = “Word of God”

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Should “Bible” = “Word of God”?

Of course there would have been no Bible without the resurrection!

The Apostles were hiding, distraught, and had given up. The resurrection changed everything!

I heard those sermons at North Point. They were compelling, insightful, and true.

Well said.

I have heard almost all his messages in the past 13 years, seen his dedication, and more.

His life is a great example of a person dedicated to the work of the Lord.

1 Like

I am happy (and not surprised) to hear that! I’ve enjoyed listening to a lot of his sermons posted online, and I’ve learned much, and always felt edified and better informed after each one.

1 Like