New documentary: Dismantled: A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution
The online premiere has ended, but you can order the DVD or Blu-ray here.

Andy Stanley takes the easy way out


A review of Irresistible by Andy Stanley
Zondervan, 2018

Reviewed by

Published: 6 December 2018 (GMT+10)

Parts of the Bible are hard to understand. As even the Apostle Peter found some of Paul’s letters difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16), there is no shame in admitting that parts of the Bible may initially not make sense to us. When we are confronted with passages that seem violent, counterintuitive, or just gross, we have two options. We can do the hard work to understand the passage in its context and figure out what the appropriate application is today, or we can do what Andy Stanley models in Irresistible.

Irresistible repeats the message that Stanley preached in 2018 in a series of messages titled Aftermath, which we responded to at the time. Stanley argues that many people are rejecting Christianity because they are basing their faith on an inerrant book, and that’s unnecessary because we were never meant to base our faith on a book.

Clever wordplays with no substance

Stanley is a wordsmith. Unfortunately, he seems to take pride in pithy wordplays with little regard for sound theology. For instance, in multiple places in Chapter 2 he calls God “mobile”. He means that God isn’t tied down to one place. But he gets it almost precisely wrong. God isn’t tied down to one place because He is omnipresent, not because He can easily go from one place to another.

He is also too cavalier when talking about God. Case in point, his ‘conversation between the Father and the Son’ starting on page 115 should horrify any Christian, where Stanley apparently imagines God the Father as a cross between a Harvard MBA and a used-car salesman, and Jesus as the ambitious but clueless go-getter. It’s appalling to hear any pastor be so irreverent.

Shallow exegesis

There’s such a one-dimensional lack of interest in even trying to understand what the text is actually saying. There’s an appeal to pernicious individualism in saying that the parts of the Bible that are hard for us to understand happen to be precisely the parts that don’t matter anymore.

He imposes this onto the apostles Peter and Paul, where he imagines how they might respond to the New Atheists (pp. 287–289). Anyone who has ever read their speeches recorded in Acts will be very confused as to how they became suddenly agnostic about things like the age of the earth (as good Jews, and good Christians, they would believe the Old Testament as history), and their sudden adoption of 20th century modern categories of speech.

Unhitching from more than the Old Testament

Stanley asks, “In light of what’s at stake and who is at stake, would you consider unhitching your teaching of what it means to follow Jesus from all things old covenant?” (p. 315). But he’s actually asking us to unhitch from a lot more. It’s unhitching from how Jesus and the Apostles viewed and spoke about the Old Testament. It’s also unhitching from how Christians have viewed Scripture for 2,000 years.

Stanley claims that this suggestion is motivated by a heart for people who have unnecessarily walked away from the Christian faith, and for the children and grandchildren of church-goers who are at risk of rejecting the faith of the previous generations. “I say it’s worth any change necessary to ensure the version of faith passed on to the next generation is the enduring version—the faith of our first-century fathers.” (p. 315).

But Stanley is making a dangerous assumption—that unhitching our faith from the Old Testament will result in a stronger faith that will be more appealing to young people. But the fate of almost every mainline denomination in the 20th century shows that is precisely what doesn’t work. As CMI’s Fallout! shows, and decades of CMI speakers’ experience ministering to churches around the world corroborates, people become more confident in their faith and are more excited to share the Gospel with others when they know the Bible can be trusted from the first verse.

The Bible says, “The Bible says!”

Stanley argues that we shouldn’t say “The Bible says”. But the Bible itself refers to the Scriptures in that way.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

John 19:37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

Romans 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Romans 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?

Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

James 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

James 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.

James 4:5 Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”?

For Jesus and the NT authors, “The Scriptures say” was the final word. They didn’t tell us about this fascinating guy Moses, who has this really compelling story about killing an Egyptian and then meeting God in the midst of a burning bush. What made Moses authoritative is that God spoke through Moses, not that Moses had some great experiences.

Furthermore, when Jesus and the earliest followers of Jesus explained the Gospel, they did so on the basis of the Old Testament Scriptures:

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.

Acts 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures.

Acts 17:11 Now the Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Acts 18:28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

Not only did the Old Testament Scriptures form the basis of the Gospel, they are of enduring value to those who believe in Jesus—not just because they tell us some compelling stories about people who believed in God, but for our instruction, reproof, even correction!

Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

In contrast, I cannot find one verse that advocates ‘unhitching’ our faith from the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus reserved some of his harshest rebuke for the religious leaders of his day who refused to believe the Old Testament, linking their rejection of the Old Testament to their rejection of the Jesus as the Christ.

John 5:46–47 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

Jesus even affirmed the complete inerrancy and infallibility of the Old Testament to the letter and taught that it is relevant for all believers today—even affecting our eternal destiny!

Matthew 5:17–19 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What then does this say when Andy Stanley says we shouldn’t use this language? Is he saying that Jesus got it wrong?

The power of a unified, infallible book

Stanley displays a contempt for the sort of argumentation that rests on the foundation of the Bible as an infallible book. But when we dig in and do the hard work to understand what the Bible teaches, we see that the Bible can stand up to any challenges anyone has been able to throw at it.

When people hear that God really did create in 6 days, around 6,000 years ago, like Genesis teaches, and that the Bible—all of it—can be trusted, they don’t need the watered-down message that Stanley preaches.

Helpful Resources

From Creation to Salvation
by Lita Cosner
US $14.00
Soft Cover
How Did We Get Our Bible?
by Lita Cosner, Gary Bates
US $3.50
Soft Cover
Christianity for Skeptics
by Drs Steve Kumar, Jonathan D Sarfati
US $17.00
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

Terry M.
Thank you Lita. I know it must have been hard to write this review. But I am so glad you saw it had to be done. This new theology of Andy’s has been brewing for sometime in the modern seminaries. But like King Solomon said, “There is nothing new Under the sun”. It breaks my heart when leaders stray from Sound doctrine.... Letting down their guard to the siren of the evil one. Thank you so much.
Bob C.
Paul writing in the book of Romans. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" Romans 16:17&18.
Morris B.
to Dave M. above - I've heard this message from Christians I _USED_ to be friends with. I say used to as they refused to listen to me about my warnings regarding this false teacher, and no longer talk to me.

There is NO SALVATION in Andy Stanley's heretical message. He is LITERALLY preaching another Gospel, another Jesus. This is Marcionism.

CMI - Thank you for contending for the faith, keep revealing the false teachers to shine a light on the darkness within the body of Christ. We are repeatedly warned to beware of self deception. To test our faith, to reason together with God and to test the spirits that we follow.

It just seems today people are content with having their ears tickled, and follow after hip "teachers" rather than Biblical sound exegesis.
Rich J.
In only a min or two into his talk about this book, a quote from Andy Stanley..... " To create a church that un-churched people would love to attend" I’m confident there is a fundamental problem with this statement.
Rachel S.
Having reread what I've written above, I just want to say that in the article about carbon dating and tree rings that I just read, the author did not start out saying "The Bible says". They used facts based on studies by Creationist scientists and PhDs. Jesus also used current things such as a fig tree not blooming and a woman bathing His feet with perfume to teach as well as the Old Testament. After all, the same God who created us is the same God who walked on earth and gave His life for us. So I think we ought to pray for the church--especially those of us on the "front lines". Anybody can be misunderstood.
Lita Cosner
The tree rings article also didn't say that we need to unhitch from the Old Testament, and it's written from a perspective that takes Scripture, all of it, as absolutely authoritative.
Mike M.
Again, in regards to Acts 17, Paul is presenting General Revelation to non-believers and then works his way to Jesus. In fact he uses Greek philosophers and poetry to show them that they are "so close!" Never once does Paul use the term "according to the Scriptures" or any similar term. This is not to say he is not presenting truths from the scriptures to the Athenians, however to specifically appeal to the Old Testament scriptures to those who have never read, nor understand, nor believe in would be futile. Instead he uses their philosophy and poetry against them (so to speak) in order to persuade them.

With all that being said, keep up the good work!
Lita Cosner
Paul's categories are thoroughly biblical, and in fact he uses those biblical categories to challenge them, co-opting their own poets' statements to make biblical points. He doesn't 'unhitch' from the Old Testament for a moment. But consider this as well--Luke provides us with an outline of Paul's sermon, but Paul would have spoken for much longer than the few minutes it takes to read the passage from Acts 17. So how might he have filled out those outlined statements? His letters to Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, etc, are all to Gentiles, but they are full of Old Testament references, so much so that instruction from the Old Testament must have been part of the catechesis of those early believers.
Rachel S.
It's awful that the son of Rev Charles Stanley is talking like that.
You cannot rewrite the Bible to please people. And if anyone did receive
Jesus through Andy's sermons, then he owes it to them to not confuse them about the Bible.

Rather, like David we should pray: "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer." Psalm 19:14 NKJV.
Johann L.
Hi Lita & CMI team Once again, thank you for the life-changing resources you provide. There truly is no room for compromise, but there is always room for correction. Lita, despite your direct answers to Mike M, I honestly feel there is still an element of evasiveness by you. In Acts 17, Paul uses creation, which would not be a problem since the Greeks believed in some form of it. But he actually first points to an (idolatrous?) altar to use it as a stepping stone to the God they don’t know. The hyper-critical could say, “Why is Paul using their idol-altar when it’s forbidden to eat food offered on them? Could the former not also cause others to stumble?” Paul goes on to say they are worshipping this Unknown God without knowing Him. Would it be extreme to say that he could accidentally nudge some into a false sense of comfort when worshipping some unknown god? Then he quotes their own poets as speaking truth. Again, why risk making people think that their heathen poets could be writing the truth? You might not choose the same words, but Paul’s correction about circumcision is indeed an unhitching from the old testament. Surely you can see that? Jesus clearly states that not everyone who commits miracles in His Name will go to Heaven, yet in Mark and Luke 9, Jesus tells His disciples not to discourage those doing good in His Name, stating they’re on the same side. Of course, the totality of Paul’s message is clear. Like any Bible verse or quote, Andy Stanley’s message needs to be seen in totality & in context too. I encourage you to look at your speakers’ schedules, try sync with Andy’s somewhere, raise your concerns, set up an interview, and post it to your readers. Whoever stands corrected in the end, that’s what The Body does.
Lita Cosner
See my comments to Mike M. Paul's categories are thoroughly biblical, even when he isn't directly quoting Scripture. Paul is using the idol altar as the occasion of the address, and if you look at the Greek, the word for "religious" has the strong connotation of "superstitious"--which is probably how Paul actually meant it. Paul is not acknowledging the altar as actually truly worshiping God, but he is saying, "You're very superstitious, and right here on this altar, you admit your ignorance of God! So now I will tell you about Him." Every sentence of Paul's address was designed to refute their false religious beliefs and confront them with the truth of the Gospel.

Paul's statements about circumcision are not unhitching from the Old Testament. In Galatians, a key element of his polemic against Christian circumcision is "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness" (3:6; Genesis 15:6), and God's promise that He would justify the Gentiles (3:8, Genesis 12:3)--i.e., they didn't need to become Jews to be believers in Christ. Paul is not departing from the Old Testament at all. The Old Covenant isn't our covenant, but these are our Scriptures.
Grahame G.
Thank you for another excellent article that exposes error and points us back to God's word.

This article and the list of verses will be very useful for exposing the broader error of not trusting God's word, including the books of the old covenant.

It is a frequent problem among many who call themselves Christians but are often not.

II Timothy 3:16 and 17 put this to rest. Sola scriptura. Note the two or three (depending on translation) comprehensive absolutes of v17.

16  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,  17  that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.  ESV

16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,  17  that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.  NKJV
Ashante W.
This article ‘Irresistible’ is very good and interesting which is written by Andy Stanley. I have learnt that he has watered down God’s Word and he is against what the scriptures has to say. Andy Stanley needs correction, reproof, prayer and training. This article is also encouraging and the most interesting thing is that the Old Testament is even relevant today and Jesus came and fulfilled it.
Seathrun M.
I have been a devout Bible-believing born again Christian since childhood; my father was a strongly Evangelical pastor in a major denomination and stood up for the truth taught in Scripture even when it was unpopular with his fellow ministers.
That said - as someone living in a traditionally Roman Catholic country and who has studied Roman Catholicism in some detail - I suspect that many of the "lies" that Bill P. in the US was taught were originally due to misunderstandings rather than deliberate deceit. The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible - which was the only version approved by that Church for centuries - mistranslated several key Greek words in the New Testament. As a result, Roman Catholic theologians were able for a long time to genuinely believe doctrines based on these mistranslations. In short, these doctrines were not Biblical, but appeared to be until better versions of the Bible - not based on the Latin text - became available. The preachers of these wrong doctrines were not so much deceivers as themselves among the deceived!
One example is the Greek "dikaioo" which means to "declare not guilty, to acquit", whereas the Latin "iustificare" - from which we get the English word "justify" - gives the idea of "making righteous" rather than "declaring righteous". This led to wrong ideas of what "justification" is and several further errors as to how we can become righteous. This was a genuine, if also disastrous, mistake rather than deliberate deceit on the part of Roman Catholic teachers.
Carol W.
Thank you for this article. It continues to confirm my misgivings about Andy Stanley. What hurts me is how many Christian friends of mine go to churches that promote his books for “Bible Study “.
Andrew V.
Have these commenters read the book? I have. I agree with Mike M. & I do not see Andy rejecting the veracity of the Bible (Old or New Testament) in any way. I haven't heard him preach, but from his book, I do not see 'the problem'. He isn't writing his book to tell us how to teach/preach inside the church, but outside, in the western, postchristian world. I don't think his views work everywhere. And: he has great admiration for David Limbaugh's "Emmaus code". As scripture says "but test them all; hold on to what is good" There is much in the book that is very good and thought provoking. Read, reminescence, spit out the bad and keep the good. I do appreciate reviews, but remember there might be some stuff left out or misinterpreted. Creation.com I love and bless your ministry. Keep on the good work. I highly appreciate the great ressources.
David S.
The state of the western church...anemic, full of false teachers, self-absorbed and “unhitched” from the power of the Word of God. Are we still surprised that the devil is able to convince our so called leaders to abandon the most formidable weapon we have, the sword of the Spirit? Satan surely is laughing at our spiritual insanity!
Graham P.
Excellent piece. The received wisdom of people like Andy is that the historical old testament isn't true: IE the Jews were just another people, there might not have been any miracles etc, Nebuchadnezzar didn't exist and so on. But if Andy would bother going to the British Museum, as any world famous spiritual leader of a historically true religion ought to, he'd discover that all the historical details of the old testament are borne out in the ancient artifacts kept there.
The book 'Evidence for the Bible' carried on this site, illustrates this reality.

So Andy's problem is that he's not done his homework.

We can compare Andy's mistake, metaphorically, to the 'story' of John Lister, who was a guy that discovered antiseptic medicine: he found that washing of hands with carbolic soap stopped maternal and infant mortality. But beneath the 'clever guy' there is an underlying truth: there are germs that must be killed. So it isn't a question of how you feel about the soap or the hand washing. People who were offended by Lister's dogmatic insistence on washing hands were guilty of condemning babies and women to death.
Mike M.
Lita, thanks for such a quick response! These are all great questions. Firstly, I do not attend Andy's church, nor know him personally, so my answers are speculative. My response to the book critique are based upon listening to him in an interview on Crossexamined.org where he explained his position and motivation for writing his book. With that being said I will do my best to respond to your questions in the order in which you posted them :)
1a) I would imagine that when Andy speaks on sexual immorality to his CONGREGATION he can and does appeal to the Old Testament, or he could just use citations such as Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, etc. where the term sexual immorality would cover any and all sexual acts outside the confines of the marriage covenant.
1b) Again Paul was again speaking of someone within the body of believers in which the Old Testament would have authority and could be appealed to but also covered under the general term sexual immorality.
2 & 3) Andy has never, to my knowledge anyway, ever claimed that the Bible is errant (not inerrant?). However, when approaching unbelievers in today's society it is always best to begin with the un-deniability of the existence of truth and that its opposite is false, show the existence of a theistic God, define miracles, their purpose and their inevitability given the existence of a theistic God, then move into the reliability of the New Testament. This should be followed by Jesus' claims to deity which were confirmed miraculously. This shows that Jesus is in fact God incarnate and that whatever He teaches is true and that based upon that His affirmation that the Old Testament is the infallible word of God.
You don't start with the Old Testament, you handle the New Testament and get the Old thrown in for free.
Lita Cosner
Paul started with the Old Testament--in fact, he started with Creation in Acts 17.
Roy H.
Roy H.
Andy's problem might be "that he hasn't done his homework". However, more likely, his greater problem is that "it's all about Andy", he has forgotten all the glory goes to the CROSS. Its "make me less, you (Jesus) be more". If this was his motto, he would not be saying and writing the things he is.
Mike M.
I think there are a couple of things that should be done anytime someone is critiquing someone else and that is to accurately represent the other persons view. A couple of observations.
1) when Andy Stanley says we should "unhitch ourselves from the old testament" what he means is that we as Christians are no longer bound to the Old Testament covenants, instead we find ourselves in the New Covenant.
2) When He says that we shouldn't say "the Bible says" what he means is that in today's culture you can no longer assume that who you are speaking to holds that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Apologetically speaking you never begin with the Bible in making your case, you end with it, otherwise you are presenting a question begging argument. The apostles and Jesus could begin with the Old Testament when speaking to Jews, it was already held by the culture to be authoritative, however Paul, when evangelizing to the gentiles, didn't start with the scripture for it had no meaning to them. General revelation should be appealed to initially when engaging non-believers and then work your way to the Bible. The Bible is special revelation that is the norm for the church.
3) Andy is right, our faith is not based upon the Bible. Our faith is based upon an event and the New Testament is the record of that event. There were thousands of followers of Christ before one line of the New Testament was written.

With all that being said, (I have no dog in this fight so to speak), perhaps it would be best to have Andy on and interview him and let him respond to your concerns in person. I am sure he would be more than willing to accommodate.

Your brother in Christ
Lita Cosner
1) How does Andy Stanley prohibit bestiality among his congregation (as he presumably does) if he does not point to the Old Covenant? Similarly, Paul felt very comfortable assuming that the man in the Corinthian church shouldn't have his father's wife--that's in the Old Covenant too. While it's not our covenant, apparently Paul felt it laid out God's moral standard in a way that is still binding on Christians today.
2) Paul preached Christ in a Gentile culture that didn't assume the Bible's authority either--that didn't stop him from assuming the Bible's authority.
3) Our faith is based on events that we only have access to through the Bible. If the Bible doesn't record those events inerrantly, where do the errors start or end?
W Wade S.
It has been said that a truly knowledgeable, competent disciple of Christ should be able to present Him to an objective listener from the Old Testament alone. Scripture is God’s enduring gift to us; an integrated message system of extra-terrestrial origin that imparts His eternal truths to us in astounding ways. Pastor Stanley is guilty of gross irresponsibility if he is suggesting that the Old Testament is not necessary to a full understanding of God’s plan of Redemption. “The New Testament is in the Old Testament, concealed; The Old Testament is in the New Testament, revealed.” Two blazing examples of the truth of this aphorism: the link between Numbers 21:4-8, and John 3:14-15; and Jesus’ apparent holding of the Pharisees and scholars responsible (Luke 13:34-35) for not understanding the time when the Meshiach Nagid, “The Messiah the King”, would make His triumphal entry into Jerusalem — precisely as prophesied in Daniel 9:25 (173,880 days from the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem by Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 14, 445 B.C.). Pastor Stanley would do well to reaffirm the integrity of the entire “bandwidth” of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, rather than undermining it via compromise.
Alf F.
Does Andy Stanley have a right to believe in a book he doesn't trust? Or teach a truth he doesn't really believe? John 17:17 KJV "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." There is reality, and then there's truth. In as much as the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and an offense and foolishness to unbelievers, so reality doesn't determine truth; truth determines reality. A watered down Gospel becomes unpalatable to everyone in the end, ineffective and despised. Like salt without savour. Shame.
Claude T.
Claude T. TX
If the review is correct, I would not look further at Stanley ...but your review make excellent points & cites important scripture that will itself preach well. Thank you.
Frank S.
If you are moving away from the Bible as the ultimate authority, you are moving toward something else as a replacement (science, approval of others, not wanting to be 'unsophisticated' or laughed at, etc). That other authority now becomes your 'false god' and will increasingly lead to other compromises- "Holding on to faith (in the Bible) and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. I Tim 1:19). Pray for Charles that he will re-anchor himself to The Word Of God before he drifts too far.
S H.
The Bible is a complete book with Old and New both reflecting each other with a depth of astonishing accuracy in the text (and behind the text) and equally, needing each other in order to have a complete picture of the Bible, God, Jesus, the world etc. We may not be under the Old Covenant as believers in Jesus but we need the whole counsel of the Bible. Otherwise we're skewed in our beliefs. God authored the Bible outside of time for all of time. This sounds like post-modernism at its worst - where people interpret things (in their case the Bible) individually and according to their own beliefs. But this is obviously the wrong way round! While we read the Bible, it's really reading us. We understand in light of God and what he says, not in light of us and what we think! How would the church father's feel who throughout the centuries died to preserve the complete truth and counsel of God's Word, as well as the persecuted church dying for the same.
Bill P.
Some 40 yrs. ago The Lord had mercy on me and saved me from my sin. Before this for the first 25 yrs. of my life I was raised in The Catholic church. So powerful was their indoctrination that even after being saved one of the first things I did was take my Bible and looked up all the things I was taught during those early yrs. thinking I would find them.
It was then I discovered that in those early yrs I was lied to. It Is The Word of God being led by His Holy Spirit in all truth that opens up the heart to what is The Truth of God, and what are the lies of this world. Those who love "the lie" always puts forth the idea that scripture (God's True Word) is misunderstood or has no place in today's world because it is outdated.
The Truth is that any who seek The Lord w/all of their heart in truth are led by His Holy Spirit to His Word and it becomes Very Clear as to what is taking place in this world today. The best, and only way is to put one's trust In The Creator of heaven and earth and in Him alone.
The father of all lies fooled Eve, and Adam willingly sinned against God. Since then many have come along and fooled millions into believing a lie as I experienced in my youth. Those who lied to me have now joined hands w/those like Stanley and others to fool millions more.
The Only Weapon we have is The Holy Spirit of God (Who lives in all who truly trust The Lord) and The Word of God to leads us through these "LAST DAYS". Doing this any other way will result in the same mistake Eve made. Trust The Lord and HIS WORD. Do not trust men who cast aside God's Word and twist it into their lie.
Keep up the good work.
Dave M.
Wow. This guy has reached more people with the gospel message, and people want to “correct” “one message. Sad.
Lita Cosner
Someone might well say about Paul and Judaizers, "Wow, they are reaching people with the Gospel message, and Paul wants to 'correct' them about circumcision. Sad." It's one message, but it's utterly destructive to Christianity, and ironically undermines the Gospel he wants to share.
John P.
It is wiser to unhitch Andy Stanley. With the nonsense he seems to be sprouting I would hate to be a member of his congregation with any sort of problem He peddles hopelessness and could not comfort anyone for the life of him= to use an old phrase.He sounds more like a wolf in sheeps clothing than what I would expect a pastor to be like.
Dean R.
To unhitch Exodus is already to unhitch Hebrews & Revelation, to unhitch Genesis is to unhitch Matthew & John.You wouldnt be reclaiming Jesus you would be building a house upon the sand.

The Old and the New are deeply intertwined cords of truth given to us by God. It is a warts and all account that shows God has never been impressed by a numbers mentality as if there is safety or truth in that.

Stanley is the clueless salesman, a man with a severed, shrinking or absent faith that seems to be inadequate in providing the full counsel of God.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.