North Point Responds Concerning Andy Stanley’s Comments on Scripture

Post image for North Point Responds Concerning Andy Stanley’s Comments on Scripture

I recently posted a video of Andy Stanley providing an apologetic on addressing the objection that Adam and Eve were not historical figures. My concern is set as a question in the title of my post – Andy Stanley Separates the Gospels from the Bible? I thought the answers Stanley gave brought more confusion than clarity. Plus, the answer given to the thinking skeptic would most likely not be satisfied by Stanley’s answer.

Since my post, reader Tom Garito reached out to North Point Ministries which Stanley founded in 1995. Tom received a kind reply from Stanley’s assistant. (Apparently, Stanley actually commented on Denny Burk’s post.)

Dear Tom,

Thank you for your email.

Apparently, there has been some confusion created by a recently posted excerpt of an interview done by Andy Stanley.

The interview was conducted by Jeff Henderson and originally aired on Preaching Rocket. Andy’s was one of several interviews presented with various preachers and speakers on the topic of preaching.

In the part of the interview in question, Andy discusses the importance of “approach” when speaking to unbelievers. He was not commenting on the infallibility of Scripture.

For more information, I invite you to read the chapter entitled “Double-Barrel Preaching” in his book Deep & Wide. You can also watch or listen to a talk on the subject in Going Wide. Lastly, Andy did a message series called Text, which you might find helpful.

I hope that provides the clarity you are seeking. Again, thank you for the question.

Sincerely,

Diane Grant | Assistant to Andy Stanley
North Point Ministries

I very much appreciate Diane’s reply to Tom. Although I’m not sure how much clarity it offered. I understand that Andy was not addressing the infallibility of Scripture, but he did comment on it in passing. And his comments seem to put little importance on Scripture’s infallibility.

I appreciate that Stanley was trying to help other Christians by offering a way to speak to unbelievers in today’s culture. I simply disagree and do not understand why a Christian would dismiss part of Scripture for another given that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). The astute unbeliever might object in the same way.

Here I blog…

Mark

Tags: , , ; Categories: apologetics,Christianity,Church Issues,relativism,theology
The above article was posted on May 31, 2013 by Mark Lamprecht.
© 2004-2014. All rights reserved.


{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Joe Blackmon May 31, 2013 at 4:21 pm

I also noticed that she used the term infallibility rather than inerrancy.  That may not mean anything, but I’ve often seen it used by folks who deny inerrancy to make it look lik they’re Bible believing Christians.  (i.e. Adam and Eve were not historical figures, but the Bible was not written to teach us history so it’s not bad that it mentions them.

2 PaulAbeyta May 31, 2013 at 5:35 pm

I can’t believed I decided to listen to the sermon. 10 minutes passed before he even mentioned God (not sure who they are there to worship). But then at 21:50 – 22:45, Stanley let’s us know his view of the Scripture plainly. He says concerning the first 7 books in the Bible…. “and to be honest they are not the most interesting books in the Bible” right in the middle of explaining that this was all the text that David had and that it was his basis for writing Psalm 119 (which the author of Psalm 119 clearly wouldn’t have said since that is the longest chapter in the Psalms and it’s all about adoration for Scripture – God’s revealed Word to us). Not only that…has he read them? You may not agree with them, but how can you say they are not interesting. It seems that Diane Grant would have been better off not including this sermon because it only validates what the Preaching Rocket clip proclaimed.

3 PaulAbeyta May 31, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Full disclosure – I posted that comment before I finished listening to the whole sermon. It gets much worse. At the end, he gives 4 points (the first point wasn’t bad). But after the points he goes into a rant about praying not being the same as reading the Word (fair), but then he says prayer is trying to get God to do something…so bad.

4 Robert Vaughn May 31, 2013 at 6:30 pm

In a comment at Denny’s blog, labeled to be by Andy Stanley, he writes, “Garet Robinson and Daniel reflect my intentions perfectly.” This confuses the matter even more, because one of the things that Garet wrote was “As we all know believing in verbal plenary inspiration is not required for being an evangelical.”

5 Larry Farlow November 28, 2014 at 9:23 pm

For someone hailed as such a great communicator he seems to have to go behind himself and explain what he really meant a lot.

Previous post:

Next post: