6) Stanley argued that oneness in the faith was "more important than being theologically correct," adding that he believed when Christians of various denominations get to Heaven "we will discover that when it comes to theology, we were all wrong about something." He cited the Jerusalem Council, as described in Acts 15, in which the early church decided that Gentile converts did not need to strictly observe Jewish law to become Christians. Stanley argued that the passage showed that the early church was willing to make "theological and cultural concessions for the sake of unity and so should you and so should I."
Wow. How desperate one becomes when trying to lie while using the Bible. His statement here is a biblical absurdity. The problem faced by the Jerusalem Council was similar to the problem in the church at Galatia. Some from the Old Covenant were still yoking themselves to the law. They were insisting on circumcision in addition to faith in Christ for salvation. There was no theological concession made here beloved. What this was however was a theological correction. Those that were insisting on circumcision were wrong and they were being corrected. Consider Paul's explanation to the Galatians:
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. -- Galatians 5: 2-6 (ESV)
Can these verses be any clearer beloved? If you insist on circumcision or any part of the law for your salvation then you sever Christ from you! He is of no advantage to you! You will be obligated to keep the entire law! You have fallen away from grace! Andy Stanley is not stupid beloved. He knows these verses exist yet he still tried to make the case that the Jerusalem Council decision was an example of theological concession for the sake of unity. No Andy it was not and you know it.
Beloved, writing this bring no joy. The fall of Andy Stanley however cannot be ignored. A little leaven eventually leavens the entire batch. One day you don't like the term shepherd and the next you think the Bible is no longer inerrant. One day you think having a Beatles montage during worship would be really cool and in the next breath you teaching that doctrine is just a peculiarity and that unity for unity's sake is the new great commission. How truly sad but we must continue to mark Andy Stanley as an agent of disunity by bringing such heretical teachings into the body of Christ.
Reverend Anthony Wade -- May 2, 2018
