Imagine my surprise to find out that Andy Stanley is his friend. This is essentially Stanley's heretical sermon from last year regurgitated. It is just as wrong today beloved. We know Christianity is true as believers because God did a supernatural work in us and now we have the indwelt Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Without that, all we would have is some academic understanding that could be altered with the next college course we take. The things of God, such as the indwelt Holy Spirit, are foolishness to those who do not believe. You cannot educate someone into salvation. This entire argument serves only one master -- Satan. It serves only one purpose -- to undermine faith in God. Please understand we are not talking about minutia. If one Gospel writer has a story one way and another has different details; that is not a discrepancy. It is a matter of perspective and who the Gospel writer's intended audience was. But if the walls of Jericho did not really fall as described, why would I believe in the literal six day creation? Why would I believe in sin, repentance, heaven, hell, or anything else that might make me uncomfortable. That is why we do not compromise - because it always begets more compromise.
"This why the foundational beliefs of Christianity--what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity-- are true even if the reports have some errors. Getting details wrong in reporting the resurrection doesn't change the larger point that the resurrection actually happened. In fact, if all the accounts agreed on every detail, we'd rightly assume they colluded. Actual eyewitnesses never describe the same historical event in the same way. For example, survivors of the Titanic disagreed how the ship sank. Some say it broke in two and then sank. Other say the thought it went down whole. Does that disagreement mean that we shouldn't believe the Titanic sank? Of course not. They all agree on that! They were just viewing the same historical event from different vantage points. Likewise, all the writers agree that the resurrection occurred, but they will differ on the minor details (Who got to the tomb first? Did you see one angel or two? etc.). And these differences aren't necessarily contradictions, but the natural result of viewing the same historical event from different vantage points." -- Dr. Frank Turek
Just a word here about the casual way He handles the fundamental lynchpin of our faith. Comparing the resurrection to the Titanic is beyond stupid. The Titanic was not the only ship that has ever sunk before and since. The resurrection of Jesus Christ however is a singular standalone event that could only be accomplished through an omnipotent God. Now I agree with Turek that the minor details do not matter but that has not been his point beloved. His point has been that the Bible does not need to be inerrant. That means it can be false or wrong. Yes one Gospel writer may have Mary reaching the tomb first and one might have Peter. While inconsistent it does not mean that the Bible is no longer inerrant. That is absurd.
"The historical documents we've collected and put into one binding we call the New Testament are just what the name implies-- they are testaments or reports of what honorable people witnessed and had no motive to invent. In fact, given who they were and how they suffered, they had every motive to say it wasn't true . And there are several other excellent reasons that show it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian. So inerrant Bible or not, the resurrection we celebrated on Sunday actually occurred about 1,985 years ago. That means you can trust that one day you'll be resurrected like Jesus if you put your trust in him." -- Dr. Frank Turek
