I said that replacement theology is anti-semitic.
So are you saying that Covenantal Theology is anti-Semitic? While some have sadly used it as an excuse to attack Jews, Covenantal Theology isnât anti-Semitic in its nature. Godâs covenant was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the Church is the New Israel. The Kingdom of God was no longer a geo-political force but a multi-ethnic spiritual force that is made up of Jew and Gentile. Of course, I Do believe that the Jews will convert as a nation to Jesus Christ as Lord (Matt.23:39. Romans 11:1-11, 25-27.) but not in the Dispensationalist sense.
1 Like
Once again, I said that REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY is anti-semitic.
Who is next?
1 Like
Ah I see, forgive me, Iâm just use of some people clumping those two things together as if they were the same thing.
Iâve never heard the term, but can guess from its name what it is probably meant to represent. And I presume you wouldnât have used the phrase unless you thought it applied somehow specifically to what weâre discussing of Andy Stanley. Hence my response; which is still the same. I do remain interested in any substantive critiques anybody has to offer.
I would guess about 60-70% of the time.
I went back and counted. Last year Andy spoke about 75% of the time.
There are more choices in the church bookstore. I am not sure why he would have other peopleâs books available on his website. That would put Andy in competition with other sellers.
In fact, North Point is especially careful not to compete with other groups. The church does not run its own charities; instead it pours millions of dollars annually into organizations that are doing good works well.
Here is the first page of books from the Northpoint bookstore:
On the top line, Jeff Henderson speaks often and is the campus pastor at Gwinnett. Clay Scroggins speaks often and is the campus pastor at Buckhead. For those wanting other authors, there are many Christian bookstores in the area.
For another example of a North Point staffer with a book, see this:
http://johnhambrick.net/move-toward-the-mess/
John spoke at North Point on the topic too.
Great! Hereâs a respectful response from a group of Messianic Jews concerning Andy Stanleyâs book Irrestible.
Today I was thinking about how in the old days the Roman Catholic Church only allowed their priests to read the Bible and it was in Latin, but the reformers risked their lives translating the Bible into the language of the people. Should they have left the OT out?
2 Likes
Thank you for that link, @beaglelady. All three commentators there did an excellent job, and certainly made it clear that it was not to be some âAndy-bashingâ session - and I think they did a decent job fulfilling that claim.
To be sure ⌠their criticism here is entirely about Andyâs book âIrresistableâ which I have not read. My only encounter with all this is through Andyâs three sermon series âAftermathâ. In listening to this response video, I had my first encounter with some of what they quoted Andy as saying in that book. More on that further down below. But meanwhile âŚ
As I was listening to them initially, not really knowing much about âTorah Clubâ [which I now look up and see is indeed a Christian organization], I found myself wondering what background these folks were hailing from ⌠are they Jews? Messianic Jews? Christians with strong Jewish affinity? (Maybe in my one listen-through here I missed some intro where they explicitly stated that) By the end I think at least two of the three had self-identified as Messianic Jews while the third, I think was probably Jewish - though with very gracious, amiable attitude toward his âbrothers and sistersâ as he called the others. Who it is that is making these criticisms makes a difference here, because Andyâs sermon (the âAftermathâ ones I listened to) were pretty clearly addressed ⌠not to Jews, or Messianic Jews, but to Christians, and especially wavering Christians and nones who have already rejected the faith. This is a big deal, because context is everything. Paul never tells practicing Jews to drop their Jewishness ⌠and Iâm pretty sure Andy never claims that he did (not in the sermons I saw anyway). But bring in gentiles who do not have Jewish background, and Paul speaks to them very differently than he did to âhis ownâ people. So Iâm not entirely sure that critics arenât making some âintended audienceâ mistake in thinking that Stanley is addressing all mature, bible-studying believers. He isnât. Heâs talking about [or âtoâ, rather] new believers who have a shallow view of things and right away reject the whole thing because of their surfacy glimpse of O.T. stuff. And here I do agree with these critics ⌠that an even better answer to this is to help people study deeper and not have such a flimsy view of the old testament, but actually strive to understand it. Iâm not actually entirely sure Stanley would disagree with them either on this ⌠but then again ⌠they read his book and I havenât.
I wasnât at all impressed that they spent so much time comparing Stanley to Marcion. Sure - they qualified the comparison and acknowledged that Stanley doesnât actually claim what Marcion said, but then they follow that with a lengthy accusatory comparisons between the two. They also said that Stanley provides a âtextbookâ example of âreplacement theologyâ, and also acknowledged that Stanley himself denies the label. Knowing nothing about that theology myself, it does have me curious as to what it actually is, and if Stanley denies that is what he is doing, then I would want to hear his take on why he thinks he doesnât qualify. I donât know enough about all that (from either side) to have any opinion of my own about that label.
They accuse Stanley of excluding Jews. I.e. If the old covenant is done and gone, then Jewish people who arenât Christians are left with nothing. I suspect this isnât a fair charge (or I would be surprised if Andy actually does this, based on his sermons Iâve heard.) A better way to understand âNew Covenantâ concepts, I suggest, is to think of it as widening its inclusion. Not doing more picking and choosing. Jews already were the âinâ crowd at the time and the big issue was to throw open the doors to the gentiles, which Paul spills much ink and effort doing. He doesnât for a moment think that Jews somehow become excluded whole cloth. Sure, some branches are âbroken offâ - but these, especially as ânative branchesâ are easily grafted back in. Paul is explicit about this, and I would be surprised If Stanley thought any differently.
At one point they quote Andyâs book with the line âThou Shalt Not obey the 10 commandments.â WellâŚokay. If Andy actually makes that claim then certainly I would disagree with him. But they didnât give much more context to that quote than I just did here. So I would want to see what point Andy was making in the paragraphs surrounding that sentence. I seriously doubt Stanley wants people to violate the 10 commandments. If Iâm right about that, then their criticism is a misrepresentation of Andyâs message (which I take to be that we are to go way beyond the 10 commandments ⌠I.e. simply not committing adultery does not of me a good husband make ⌠Iâd better be actually loving my wife, etc.) To supersede and improve on something is not to dismiss or violate the progenitor.
I was fascinated (about 15 min. in) when one of the three critics here (rightly) made much of Paulâs writing about the new covenant being with Israel - or as the fulfillment for Israel. I.e. These critics insist that Paul is not âunhitchingâ anything, but certainly sees Israel as the recipient of the new promise as well. To which I shout âAmen!â If Stanley would see this otherwise, then I will agree with the critics here. There is indeed (on our Christian view) Christ found in many hints and outright proclamations, especially among the prophets. In fact, just this morning as I read the last chapter of Romans, the final doxology really focused my attention on this:
Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, âŚ
[my own emphasis added]
So yes, if Stanley disagrees with that, then Iâll happily side with his critics. What I would be really interested in knowing, though, is if Stanley actually disagrees with anything said here so far, or is it just his critics putting words in his mouth. I have little interest in chasing that down since there is no profit in playing all the âletâs catch people saying wrong things, so we donât have to like them any moreâ games. But there is much profit in discussing actual truths involved!
They did accuse Stanley of being âborderline antisemiticâ - they donât actually think he hates Jews. Iâm glad they found the grace to nuance that. They really think he pushes the edge, though.
I really appreciated that they acknowledge toward the end the actual problem Andy is trying to solve (and indeed I would love to hear their own answers to those theodicy issues ⌠I guess I could always join âTorah Clubâ to find out!) And that is what they do invite people to do. As an alternative to âunhitchingâ why not delve deeper! I can heartily get on board with that. Iâd be willing to bet Stanley would too (or is already there) if they would ask him. These critics are exactly right in their observation that âwe live in a Bible-ignorant cultureâ. Letâs make it less so.
Thanks again for this, Beaglelady. I asked for a thoughtful critique and you delivered in spades!
I think this is key. Stanley has in mind a specific evangelistic and discipleship approach relevant to the US, and he is trying to remove what he sees as an initial obstacle to people giving Christianity a fair hearing.
In the contexts many Bible translators work in they find the opposite situation. It used to be that translators only did the New Testament and maybe some OT summaries to help people understand the NT allusions. That turned out to be not such a great plan. People with tribal identities who live in animistic agrarian and pastoral societies often resonate much more strongly with the OT narratives and their concrete stories of sibling rivalries, famines, infertility, idolatry, and inter-ethnic tensions than they do with Paulâs Western abstract reasoning in Romans. It turns out that in many of these contexts, starting with how God deals with Israel in the OT first is a better introduction to Christianity. I donât think Stanley would say thatâs wrong.
3 Likes
Distancing your church from its Old Testament roots removes an obstacle to evangelism? Why undermine messianic evangelism to get more white converts? Do you know what Messianic Jews go through to bring the gospel to fellow Jews?
Yesterday, Andy again preached from an OT text.
Beaglelady, you have completely misunderstood his views.
Do you believe we should keep the Sabbath, doing no work at all from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday?
Under Moses, gathering sticks on a Sabbath was a capital offense.
Andy is quite clear that the OT writings include prophecies that point to Jesus.
Many members and staff at North Point are not white. How many non-whites are in your local church?
At the beginning of the recording, they have a sampling of Andy Stanleyâs remarks. They can also be heard in in his 3 sermons about getting unhitched. He says, âThe Old Testament, or the âLaw and the Prophetsâ as they called it, was not the go-to source for any behavior for the church.â
Thatâs actually not correct. The book of Sirach, from the deuterocanonical books of the Greek Old Testament was widely used by the early church. It was also called âEcclesiasticusâ (not Ecclesiastes) because it was used to teach and catechize the faithful.
Some of its teachings include:
When you pray, prepare yourself, for you are entering into the presence of your Maker and Redeemer, even into a conversation with Him. Be not as one that tempteth the Lord.
Do not make rash vows or promises that you do not keep. Follow through on them and do them. You will be held to account, not only by those you disappoint, but by God who will hold you to them in the Day of Judgment
Be sure you judge yourself, lest you be judged. Do not go about freely judging others, and the day of visitation (your own reckoning) you will find mercy.
As a pastor said,
All the advice in Ecclesiasticus can be summarized as the practical explication of one great sentence which is itself a cardinal biblical doctrine often misunderstood because of the word, Fear. *âThe fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.â
Plenty. Â
One of the people in my parentsâ small group attends a Messianic fellowship. She did not want to finish the book and found it offensive. So, yes, not a good tool for part of the church.
It seems to me that Stanley is not above using hyperbole to make his points. So I donât imagine there is much scholarly weight behind that particular claim of his. I certainly donât imagine that would be 100% true even without needing recourse to apocryphal books to show otherwise. But yeah ⌠I agree his claim is probably overstated ⌠especially in the minds of those who canât find a single nice thing to say about him.
[content removed - with apologies. I shouldnât ask of such things from anybody.]
Are you aware of any Christians (or Jews) ⌠anybody in western countries at all that have been doing this? Iâm suspecting that even the good folks over at the Torah Club arenât in the habit of putting anybody to death. So somehow everybody has found a way to respect - even obey the 10 commandments without thinking they were suddenly obligated to do everything in the O.T. - a few passing verses from Paul notwithstanding. Prior to Andy (and he is far from the first to have ideas like he has) weâve managed to muddle through on this somehow. Sure there are loads of inconsistencies as there always will be, but I donât think thereâs any great mystery here.
The Law of Moses was given to Israel.
The first church council, documented in Acts 15, determined the believers of Gentile origin are not under the law.
2 Likes