Andy Stanley vs Jeff Durbin - Unhitching Christianity from the Old Testament?

well today on the show we're asking is it time to unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament my guest sir Andy Stanley and Jeff Durbin on the show today Andy Stanley is a pastor communicator author and the founder of North Point ministries a North Point Community Church is one of the largest churches in North America his latest book is irresistible reclaiming the new that jesus unleashed for the world and he says that to make Christianity the irresistible force that it was in the lives of the first followers of Christ we need to be clear that the Bible isn't the foundation for faith in Christianity rather the events documented by the New Testament the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the foundation but too often says Andy Christians try to defend and incorporate the Old Testament into their faith and we simply don't need to do that we need to effectively unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament well as you can imagine since preaching on that topic and publishing the book opinion has been split I read some Amazon reviews ranging from pure heresy to one of the most important books you'll ever read and of course Andy has had a number of people who've responded online on blogs podcasts and elsewhere well one of Andy's most vocal critics joins me on the show today to talk about the book he's Jeff Durban pastor of apology Church in Arizona and father of the popular YouTube channel apology estudios as well he says that Andy is acting a bit like a modern-day Marcion cutting Christianity off from the foundation of the Old Testament and Jeff believes that the Bible both old and new are the inspired and inerrant word given to us by God and Christians are called to believe it and defend it all so today we're looking at Andy's book irresistible and asking is it time to unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament so Andy and Jeff welcome along to the show yeah thanks for having us Thank You Johnson it's fantastic to have you both joining our show really been looking forward to this first time for both of you joining me on the show today let's start with you Andy I've been aware of your ministry for a long time I was delighted to discover recently I think it was on the back of my other podcast the the ask NT write anything podcast where you your name came up in relation to some questions that were being asked of NT right that that you also have listened to unbelievable and so you're somewhat familiar with the show I guess you've cried you've kind of been interested generally in apologetics from what I can tell for for quite a long time haven't you yeah I mean it started for me almost 40 years ago studying under dr. Norman Geisler in seminary and yeah it's been a framework for preaching teaching ministry really ever since and in that sense would you say that that need has become all the more apparent in recent years I know that you've preached a lot of sermons where you've talked about the problems that exist for those who are having difficulty reconciling faith in the modern day with with the claims of the Bible and so on absolutely and I think what we're gonna discover and swayam so I so appreciate the fact that three of us are talking about this is this really is a difference in approach it's not a difference in theology but I understand because of some of my language as I've worked to clarify this message you know why there's confusion because any time someone talks in different terms about the Bible all of us should sit up straight and pay attention and be concerned so I get the criticism and hey I appreciate the opportunity to kind of tease some of these ideas out and before we come to Jeff for a quick intro to him and we'll give you time to spell out that the thesis of the book is well Andy you kind of come from well-known preaching stock of course with your father who's had a longtime radio ministry in fact we broadcast him for many many years here on premier Christian radio in the UK but you kind of when you sort of set Northpoint up and that kind of thing you were you're kind of trying to reach as I understand it a bit beyond as it were that I guess a more traditional framework for church you very much see yourself as reaching the next generation and how do you see that manifest in practical ways in what North point's doing and you're trying to do through it well when we launched 23 years ago I can't believe that 23 years ago especially in the southeastern United States that our were not really I don't like this phrase but it's the phrase people use there weren't really modern churches on the southeastern United States is so extraordinarily Church about we were told this isn't going to work because when people think church they they know what a church is and they've already made up their mind so basically we did student ministry for adults because all of us to help start the church all those years ago we were all working with teenagers and college students and we thought hey let's just do for you know adults what we've been doing for students and again none of it was original I think we've pretty much copied what some other people who come before us had done and so but yeah but the the heartbeat of our church was not to have a church growth strategy and unfortunately I think some of the things that we did back then have been recategorize days hello church growth it really wasn't about church growth it really was about creating churches that unchurched people love to attend love to participate with and hopefully love the fact that we were in the community so that has been the driving force really from the very beginning very it's just it's really evangelist and then setting up the church as a partner in the process of evangelism for you know the average Christian well we'll come back to the book and how you see that as part of that process of reaching people who who are unchurched and who maybe have certain barriers to the gospel in a moment around because I believe there really is a kind of a big apologetic push behind this book but obviously it's one that Jeff who's joining us on the program today perhaps understands the motivation but doesn't agree with the the method by which you arrive at it so Jeff welcome to the show yourself tell us a little bit about apology apology a church in mintern studios because you do all kinds of things you're a very busy man producing all kinds of videos tell us a little bit about where this all came from yeah first of all I appreciate so much about Annie just said and I've been a big fan of unbelievable for a long time so I'm excited about being on today so apologia studios apologia Church really began about a decade ago I was the full-time chaplain pastor at a drug and alcohol rehab and hospital and so apologia Church came to life out of a drug rehab and so I was sitting and preaching the gospel to people who were on detoxification medicine who were in halfway houses and they were coming to Christ and we needed a place to care for them so the church that I was pastoring it at the time sent me and so he planned an apology a church inside the hospital actually at the drug rehab and so that was about ten years ago God's done amazing things since then ecology estudios formed out of that is really a ministry outreach arm for evangelism apologetics to engage the cults to engage different cultural issues and God's blessed it it's humbling to see what God has done with it and out of that also came end abortion now where God has allowed us to help to equip and to raise up about 400 local churches across the United States of America who are out actually saving lives and we've seen God save thousands and thousands of children through that ministry so lots of stuff happening for sure it's really interesting and you've been someone who's been on my radar again for a long time and people have asked for you to be on the show of course your mentor James White has been on the show many times over the years and in many ways you you guys are doing more and more together and in fact I think you were sitting in on his his regular dividing line show when you last responded to to Andy's preaching and books on this run yeah actually dr. white he was his book was the first Christian book I ever read in 1996 not being raised in a Christian home that was the first book I had read and it was the King James only controversy when I moved to Arizona I ran into him at the Mormon temple doing evangelism and so yeah he's been a teacher a mentor a friend and now many people don't know this but actually it's very recent thing dr. white is now an elder at apologia Church which is really a weird thing mmm well we've we've yeah it's been an amazing journey um I've had James white on the show very recently too so people who have regular listeners to the show will be very familiar with him one thing that I was really interested to discover in your tucked away in your biography Jeff is that you've been like a martial arts expert and have appeared in action films like Mortal Kombat I think was one of you that the titles you were you were in yeah I was a world champion martial arts competitor a travel across the country that was just kind of my career for a long time and I played Johnny Cajon and night wolf and Mortal Kombat the live tour and I did the stunts and choreography for the franchise when they were Ninja Turtles the franchise when they were doing some television stuff I played Michelangelo in Tom hello for the franchise for that do those ninja skills ever come in useful in pastoral ministry or I have to resign oh that Andy's been a pastor for a long time so he knows you have to resist you have to work on your sanctification anyway good stuff it's always fun to know the interesting past lives of pastors and what they've got up to but and we obviously did the topic today is Andy's book this question of unhitching Christianity from the Old Testament let's start with you Andy just is that a fair assessment do you use those words specifically of what you're doing in this book because a lot I've had lots of people with different opinions on what you're doing tell us what what the book is about firstly and well you vary the book or with the word and here well Alexis does that start with unhitch yeah what what do you mean by unhitching the Christianity from the Old Testament I don't want to spend too much time on this it just interrupt me if this goes too long that was a term I used in a particular sermon in a particular series I guess really almost actually actually a year ago I just done a 12 part series through the life of Jesus leading up to resurrection and it was going well so I thought hey I'll spend three weeks and just keep story going narrative wise through acts so I spent three weeks on Acts so in the message and acts 15 where I talked about the Jerusalem Council and this momentous decision to end the word I use was unhitch Christianity from the Sinai covenant from circumcision and again whatever I mean everybody knows something happened there that was of extraordinary significance for the church I used the word unhitch and then to tease my next series which was called the Bible for grown-ups I I made the comment hey and perhaps those of us modern Christians I forget the exact words we need to consider we need to unhitch our Christianity from the Old Testament as well kind of paralleling that there was a momentous detachment from what it meant to be a Jesus follower for Gentiles that perhaps we need to think through some of those things ourselves it really was a tease in fact in the message I said and we will come back and talk about this more in the next few weeks well and understandably so people took that phrase and it sort of became the banner under which I do all ministry and interestingly enough in our churches everyone was scratching their heads like why is this such a big deal because I teach from the Old Testament all the time in fact that next series was a four-part series and to or from the book of Genesis so in terms of my track record nothing could be further from the truth that I don't teach from the Old Testament don't believe the Old Testament don't think the Old Testament points to Jesus all the things people keep reminding me of on social media I'm like I know and if you actually paid attention to my history of preaching you'd know that but again hey we're all busy I don't expect everybody to drop in and listen to all my sermons so that's that's kind of the history of how that word came associated with my whole view of Christianity I do use the term in the content within a specific different context within the book so and then of course and you guys can appreciate this then the next rumor was well Andy wrote irresistible because of all the flack he got from the sermon well the sermon book came out in September and nobody knows anything about publishing you know you don't get a book out that quick so that that's kind of the brief history of the term in my tainted reputation that perhaps I earned but I my communication style in our local church is super specific and I'm pretty consistent and I understand people could drop in from time to time you know may misunderstand my approach and I take responsibility for that well and thanks for explaining obviously some of the background - - because it was yeah it was about a year ago now as you say that you first preached the the the sermons as it were that initially caused some controversy and then obviously the book if you like was the the more full explanation of where you were going with that as I understand it the book is really actually your what your primary concern is is with reaching the next generation a post Christian generation which as far as you can see it just doesn't necessarily buy into the idea that the Bible is the Word of God and so on and you have to start at a different place in that case and and and is you're trying to say well actually we need to go back to the early because they didn't have the Bible as we have either and and just take us through that what what what what you're responding to how you think that we can in fact make the gospel irresistible again for this next generation yeah the a little bit of the backstory is about nine years ago I was watching a video Sam Harris he was at a university setting you know doing his Sam Harris thing where he dismantles the Bible and there goes Christianity and it occurred to me wow there-there's a false assumption that skeptics for generations have leveraged and have baited Christians into this this debate in the under really what I can think is a false assumption and the assumption is as the Bible goes so goes Christianity so if you dismantle the Bible the Christianity goes away you've undermined Christianity if you you know if it's a 66 card house of cards if you pull out Genesis pull out Leviticus pull out Revelation the whole thing comes tumbling down which is just not true and I thought this is you know once upon a time maybe this didn't matter because you had to buy tickets to debate who's gonna read their books but now every middle school or high school or college student has access to all that misinformation and now you can find out what else is in the Bible think about this without ever opening a Bible or owning a Bible or even holding a Bible and so I just felt compelled this is really about nine years ago to step back on sort of the classical apologetic method that I was taught I mean I certify didn't make any of this up you know thirty five almost forty years ago to say hey I would like to reaped boy I say it is I would like to tether the faith of this generation to the event that created the movement that eventually brought us the Bible to tethered their faith to the event that launched the movement that eventually brought us the Bible so none of this is new it really just isn't a different approach and it's really putting the spotlight in terms of the foundation of our faith on the event of the resurrection which every apologist who ever debates any of the new atheist or anybody else eventually they get to the issue of the resurrection because the documents documenting the resurrection aren't dependent on an inerrant scripture they're just dependent on a historically reliable scripture so you know that's that was the thing that drew that motivated me and as I've been talking about this for many many years and I kept being misunderstood as people kind of dropped into specific sermons so one afternoon dr. geiszler he's 86 now he called me at home I remember standing on the front porch he said Andy you have to write about this I'm like I don't want to write about this that's that's not my thing I mean that's technical that's a you know he says no you're gonna continue to be misunderstood if you don't write about this it's not enough to talk about it so I did a little short ebook called on why the Bible tells me so is that enough anymore and then eventually wrote irresistable so my my heartbeat or the reason I did all of this really is to shift the approach to shift the conversation and to really I mean I asked church leaders all the time what's the faith of the next generation worth and I think it's worth everything and so I just began to want to help church leaders tether the faith of this generation to the event of the Resurrection that brought us the movement the church that eventually brought us the Bible so it's nothing new it's really just sequential and anyway but I understand why it's a little bit you know well it makes people nervous sure like it cool and and and obviously a large amount of the book is he's given over to the whole question of how we to treat the Old Testament as regards the New Testament and and so on and and ultimately as I see it they're sort of the position you come down on and I'll give a quote from the book here is you say I'm not suggesting the two Testaments are not equally inspired my point is they aren't equally applicable and that's the big difference for you on this in this argument that's certainly one of the differences and I'm glad you brought this out because all the book reviews make it sound like the whole books about the Old Testament and it's not the the old my discussion about the Old Testament is really taking people on a journey to understand really the distinction from my perspective of the New Covenant and the Old Covenant and that the New Covenant is supported primarily by the resurrection which and the other way I say this is you know the Old Testaments at the beginning of our book but it's at the back of our apologetic method that we take the Old Testament seriously because Jesus did and we take Jesus seriously because of the resurrection so again it's a bit sequential it's out of order for most Christians because when we're children they give us the whole thing old new testament nobody tells us it's arranged around covenants it's God's holy inspired and fallible word you know be careful in there and you know most people don't read it anyway which of course is unfortunate so yeah well look let's um let's just say if you're listening and you would like to respond to anything you hear on today's show you more than welcome as usual to send in an email that's unbelievable at premiere dr. UK or get in touch via social media at unbelievable JB on Twitter Facebook calm and believable JB as well is a way to get in touch with the show and you can find today's show and all the ways to get in touch from the show page premier Christian radio com forward slash unbelievable Jeff let's bring you in at this point one one of the things that and he says in his book is in light of the post Christian context in which we live it's time to stop appealing to the authority of a sacred book to make the case for Jesus in the information age that habit unnecessarily undermines the credibility of our faith it makes our message unnecessarily resistible and and so a lot of what I think Andy's getting at which then the Old Testament kind of comes into is this idea that we can't speak to skeptics from a position of asking them to accept the inerrancy infallibility of of the Bible we've got to start on this ground of okay well let's look at this is a historical document are these do these claims stand up historically true what what do you make of that particular approach I suppose - apologetics generally and and and obviously will then start to talk about how it how it keys into the Old Testament stuff No thank you very very much I think it's it's important and II said that it's not a difference in theology it's a difference in approach in terms of approaching the law of God and and and these issues I think it's important because I think it is deeply theological the theology underneath us as a foundation will lead to practice into methodology and in terms of where we're at today with a culture that's where it's at today I think we need to get closer and closer to the worldview and the theological foundation of the Apostles that were preaching in the book of Acts and how they were approaching the world and in order to do that we have to go to the text self and I think what you can see just universally throughout the scriptures is an appeal to the self attesting authority of the word of God always and in every case even when bringing up something like an example like the resurrection of Jesus Peter actually says and Andy refers to this and some of his work in 2nd Peter 1 16 through 19 when he refers to the fact that we were eyewitnesses to his glory he then goes on to say but we have something more sure the prophetic word and so he bases actually the certainty in the end the surety of his testimony not on the fact that they were eyewitnesses he of course mentions that we were eyewitnesses to him but he has something more sure the prophetic word and I think this is interesting to you and I would just say this with and I and I love and respect Andy a tremendous amount but I think it's providential brothers that's in this moment we have just behind us in the last week or so we have William Lane Craig who is a brilliant brilliant man who I think is probably the best out of any of us to talk about the historical evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ and all those things he's a brilliant man he was talking to another brilliant man that I've actually had in my program ben shapiro and he was talking about the resurrection others that yet anybody can go see this online i'd encourage you to do so when dr. Craig points this to the historical evidences in the logical logical consistency of the resurrection of Jesus Christ at the very end of this strand of amazing evidences and logical argumentation Ben Shapiro his answer is I find that uninteresting and I think that goes back to the issue of it's where Andy says it's not a difference in theology it's a difference in approach and I think that it is an issue of theology and the condition of man because in that case I think we need to look what the scriptures say about someone like say ben shapiro when there's an argument of historical evidences and logical consistency the problem according to the apostle paul in romans chapter 1 is not a lack of evidence or knowledge of god paul says that we all know God that the problem is that we're suppressing the truth and justice for that which is known about God is evident within them here's what it says for God has made it evident to them so the problem isn't is a sinful suppression of the truth not that we're not neutral towards God that we just don't have enough evidence or light or information the problem is actually breaking through that sinful suppression of the truth and it's not to say that we don't use historical evidences and have those things is to say that that's not really the problem the problem is is that we won't take God at his self a testing word we won't believe God we don't want his word and I'll just say one final word on that in terms of what we build on after the resurrection so post cross and post resurrection when Jesus is on the road to Emmaus there's a moment where he chastises these people who now see him alive from the dead and what has he chastise them for he chastises them for not believing all that the prophets and moses had had spoken concerning him and so there's there's a consistent theme throughout the scriptures of the self attesting nature of the Word of God and that the problem with fallen humanity is not a lack of evidence in sufficiency of evidence a lack of good logical argumentation the problem is that we are rebels against the king we don't want God in our thinking and so what we do is we exchange him for an idol and and again you see just this consistency throughout the Old and New Testament that the problem is is that we will not accept God at His Word and the answer from Scripture is Romans 1:16 it's the good news the gospel is the power of God for salvation that's what God uses to raise people to life but I think we need to ask ourselves the question do we believe that Christ is the foundation of all knowledge all knowledge or not and I'll just say one final word here so I don't go on too far and take too much time that when we talk about approaching the current atheistic or unbelieving or agnostic culture and worldview with the Christian worldview and we try to cater our theological approach or apologetic methodology to it I think that where we're losing this length of the biblical worldview in the gospel when we step into the unbelievers position and we assume neutrality along with them and we try to actually borrow from their their standards and methodology rather than actually showing them that without the biblical worldview without starting with Christ in your thinking there is no meaningful appeal to logic there's no meaningful appeal to evidences we don't have uniformity in nature which is the foundation of all appeals evidence whatsoever without the biblical God so if we don't start with the self attesting Word of God under our feet standing on it we don't even have a coherent appeal as Christians to laws of logic to to morality ethical appeals or to an appeal to any evidence wall well thank you very sketched out I think a significant difference between you both and and that is that obviously you take this what is often called presuppositional approach to apologetics generally Jeff and and I'd be interested to hear and can I just say one thing yeah go ahead go ahead and agree I agree but most all that again this is i but i i I don't know Jeff we we've never met but I've watched a bunch of your stuff and I'm sorry do i I said I'm sorry no I wish I could preach for an hour I want to know who's taking care of the children for an hour but hey you must be an extraordinary leader to recruit those kind of volunteers and that even count the music's I don't how long your services are so my hat is off to you in that way but this you know you have this super famous sermon and story that is just fabulous about the standing around the corner and abortion clinic and that you get the argument with the atheist and then your friends kind of get us up he stands out front and leans on the sign and the guys inside and praise show me a sign and there I mean it's just it's so Provident it's so wonderful and the thing I just want to go back to is when you found yourself in an argument or going back and forth with the Atheist guy you chose an approach that allowed you to meet him where he is you don't know if he's one of the elect we don't know what's going on in his heart but he you know you're having a dialogue and he did exactly what a good Evangelist would do you met him where he was and you know I used the similar line she said hey when he said you were wrong you said well you you've lost that argument already because you're an atheist and you know it's Stardust meeting Stardust you there's how do you appeal to right and wrong so you you dropped into an apologetic approach to keep that conversation going and of course the story's great except the end he said I don't agree with you but I like you so I that's really all I'm arguing for is that in terms of approach that you know your your Calvinistic framework my sequential framework way when we're having conversations like this it's interesting we can disagree we can look at Scripture together but when you and I and you're so good at this face the world with the presuppositions of the world the world views that you just you know went through pretty quickly suddenly because we love people we accommodate to their capacity and we just our approach to wherever they want to begin or in the conversation that's all I'm arguing for so I was gonna say let's go to a quick break and then I'm gonna see what Jeff has to say in response to that and what will it be good to sketch out some of these issues around the way we do apologetics to begin with and then obviously we'll we'll we'll get into some more of the meat of the book as to how you you that that comes out in terms of the way we approach the Old Testament as well but and today here on I believe will got a fantastic conversation between Andy Stanley and Jeff Durban we're talking about Andy's new book irresistible reclaiming the new that Jesus unleashed for the world do we need to rethink our approach to the Bible to the new and Old Testament is it about unhitching Christianity from the Old Testament we've already heard Andy qualified what exactly he meant by that but we're talking about that because it has it created quite a bit of controversy since Andy preached on this and the book was published and it's great to have both Andy and Jeff with me on the show today to sort it out I'm sure by the end of today's show we'll all be in complete agreement of how to well we'll see but anyway this is unbelievable thanks for tuning in and we'll be back in just a short moments time from conversations between Christians and skeptics subscribe to the unbelievable podcast and for more updates and bonus content sign up to the unbelievable newsletter welcome back to this is a show on the show today and the Stanley and Geoff Durban join me we're talking about Andy's new book irresistible reclaiming the new that Jesus unleashed for the world in it Andy says we need to be clear the Bible isn't the foundation for Christianity rather the events it documents particularly in the New Testament the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ those are the important things those are the foundation and too often we try to defend and incorporate the Old Testament into Christian faith and we simply don't need to do that today well these comments that and is made in the book and on some of the preaching is done have stirred a certain amount of controversy and Andy were just saying that's there's a difference in how we pronounce that particular way smarter than our daddy wait the this is a common myth that somehow the English accent makes some Americans think that we're 10% or 15% smarter or something but anyway it's it's it's nice to have a completely unjustified edge in that way but Jeff coming back to you there and so Andy there in that last segment was kind of saying look I don't think we're that far apart as you might think we are Jeff because even when you're out on the street doing apologetic you have to meet people where they are you're not going to you know we can't assume that they're going to believe the same things about the Bible and everything else and that's all I'm really trying to do here is say we need to to change the way we approach people with with the claims of Christianity without expecting them to kind of buy the whole package from the outset so what's your approach to that Jeff I appreciate that and and I love Andy a bunch and actually Andy I cut my teeth as a new believer on your dad's teaching so this is a - yes there you go so I think I think it's important and I mean this with with a lot of respect Andy after we went through that that last discussion said at the very end I agree to all that and of course of course Andy and I both accept both the old and testament as the word of the Living God both of us do that's that's not a question here and so but I think it's important to actually dig into that a little more when we say - I agree to all that you meant - something at the beginning Justin you mentioned that we're tethering it - according to Andy we're tethering it to an event rather than to the Word of God and I think that is actually a difference in approach they from what you see consistently throughout the entire Bible whether it's the old or New Testament and just it just to point something out here I think that we need to grapple with in terms of that as an approach tethering it to an event rather than then to the Word of God this argument I think has been addressed in Scripture before tethering it to an event someone rises again from the dead and it's actually mentioned by Jesus in their story of the rich man and Lazarus when the rich man what says you know just you know let's get someone to go back from the dead the response is if you know they have Moses and the prophets they have the Word of God if they're not gonna if they're not going to listen to him if they're not going to listen to the Word of God then neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead and I think that that's critical and again in light of even this recent discussion where this methodology is being tried out when William Lane Craig brings up these amazing evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Ben Shapiro's immediate responses I just find that uninteresting why would you find it uninteresting that someone rose from the dead that's insane and then the problem is is because we're not actually believing the self attesting Word of God and what the early Christians were doing is they were actually appealing as they preached the gospel to the Word of God as the foundation of their apologetic so whether it's in Acts chapter 2 where the Apostle was preaching the gospel Pentecost happens all of the grounding for the message is found in the text from the Old Testament that prophesy all of this and then as the gospel first goes out to the Gentiles as it goes out to the Gentiles for the first time that's recorded in Scripture we have and again an appeal to the to the prophets and the foundation of the Word of God and so we don't the resurrection detached from the self attesting nature of the word of God and I think this is this is critical that the Bible comes to us not just in little parts and pieces but as an entire message there's an organic unity to the entire Bible and you see from beginning to end whether it's in the Old Testament proverbs chapter 1 verse 7 that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge knowledge isn't even truly possible without reverence submission and all to God in Colossians chapter 2 verse 3 it says in Christ our hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge it's in Jesus and this is critical to Jesus when he was in the midst of controversy in his ministry he did appeal at times as he was addressing error in his Dale era in his day he would say you've heard that it was said dealing with their twisting of the word of God but I say to you so he would of course appealed to his own his own authority as God in the flesh but when he's dealing with controversy in his day in Matthew 19 with the hella light and she might marriage controversy with the for any cause divorce he says have you not read so he grounds his his fighting against that controversy in the Word of God in Matthew 15 there's another controversy in his day where they're allowing their tradition to twist and distort what God has said in his word and he says thus you invalidate the Word of God for the sake of your tradition he says this here's here's how he deals with the controversy he says Moses says but you say so he says thus you invalidate the Word of God for the sake of your tradition so he takes the word of God as the sole and fallible self attesting grounding of coming against any controversy and I think you do see that not just with Jesus dealing with Jews who accept the authority of the word of God you see it throughout the Scriptures is that it's assumed they assume the authority of the Word of God with whoever they're dealing with whether it's a Jew or whether it's a Greek whether it's somebody who's not a believer in in the Old Testament the Apostle Paul at the Areopagus in Acts chapter 17 he does just that he assumes the Word of God and the worldview as he approaches these unbelievers and their perspective and then he even steps into their worldview and he shows them look even your own pagan prophets and poets have said these things and so he stands and is grounded in the Word of God as his foundation so I think that it is deeply theological and I think that theology matters in our theology in our view of the fall and people's condition and their capabilities does impact our apologetic methodology and I think and I mean this with with so much love and respect to end to and II truly if we go to unbelievers in our day of whatever stripe and we just start kicking out evidences on them we're assuming a position of neutrality that actually removes our ability to have an effective approach that brings them to the gospel because if you throw out the evidence of the Resurrection to a Jew who rejects the ultimate authority of the scriptures in many respects they're gonna come back and say I just find that uninteresting not because it is but because there's something else going on it's a sinful suppression of the truth okay good lots to engage with there Andy I suppose my question is interestingly you know a Jeff brings up the araf because in the way Paul interacts there in in acts 7 where Paul never even told them who he was talking about right and you use this as an example in your book of the you know to support your case I think I mean I think Jeff I think you just went in a circle so let me ask you such a couple questions what see here's my opinion if Christ has not been raised you're preaching in your faith is useless right yes it's not original with me you know that and also you don't believe a lot I should say that do you believe Peter and John believe Jesus was the Messiah between the crucifixion and the resurrection or did something happened to their faith after the resurrection I mean and it's people always go to the Luke on 6 is it Luke 16 yeah Luke 16 passage arson they look 16 um which is so silly to me okay because Jesus is in a parable he's talking in a parable let me read the verse right no let me read the verse right before this the law and the prophets this is I mean this is now this is Jesus these are Jesus words teaching the the refere but you just gave us was within the context of a parable about Abraham's bosom and all that Allah and the prophets were proclaimed untilled John John the Baptist since that time the good news contrast since that time the good news that the kingdom of God is being preached and everyone is forcing their way into it so I mean I get the parable thing we can we can talk about that and you and I both spend our days xgd Scripture but more to the point is that the Apostle Paul saying okay if there's no resurrection Christ isn't raised if Christ isn't raised GAMEOVER he doesn't say but we have this glow in the profits and we still have the apocalypse John which had been written yet for us we still have it in other words the whole thing is the resurrection into your point about William Lane Craig conversation I I agree with you what's going on in the hearts of men and women in terms of their response or openness or their election again we have no control over that I'm just talking about how we approach them with our conversation and I doubt we would take a very different approach not talking about approaches but in terms of actual conversation so when my kids were little not little when they were going into high school in college I said to them look you know when you get in a literature class or biology class and people bring up questions about the Old Testament are some of the what may be considered odd stories to the Bible I said don't get in a big spinning match with them about this here's here's your your answer you know what yes that's strange yes that's odd no I can't explain that but did you know Jesus believed that and I just figure somebody can predict their own death and resurrection and pull it off I just go with whatever that person says now that's not a convincing argument it's tethering our faith to the event of the resurrection that the course confirmed what Jesus taught and it confirmed what Jesus taught about the the profit so again that said it's sequential is the difference and anyway so I get back to my question so do you believe anything happened to Peter and John after the resurrection I mean because again I think where you're incorrect or you kind of smoothed over it the the sermons that we find at the beginning of Acts are all about the resurrection they're not repeating the Sermon on the Mount they're not repeating the story of the Good Samaritan it's you crucified you know you murder you kill the author of life God raised him and we've seen him so those early sermons were all about the resurrection because something extraordinary had happened so anyway and you know all that I I'm not this isn't new information this is just what we emphasize and how we sequence it yeah yeah go ahead well I'll work my way backwards Andy and I appreciate all those questions very very much and I'll just stand on the one point when you say you know if somebody rises from the dead I'm gonna go with what they say I'll believe what they say and I think this does go back to fundamental principles in terms of how do we approach the world and miracles and signs and wonders in the law of God itself we have a standard of principle by which we're told by God to test prophets and those who claim they're from God in Deuteronomy chapter 13 verses one through five God even tells his people he says even if someone comes and they have signs and wonders so they have signs and wonders it looks legit it looks like the miraculous is happening he says this but they lead you after other gods gods which you have not known that's how you know they're a false prophet and God says that you're not to listen to the voice of that prophet God is testing you to see if you love him and so God has even at that point in history given us people a principle that you test all things even miracles by the foundation of God's own previous revelation of himself good but in come on and the Gospels look I mean you know this this is history you know I know you believe this of course they go to an empty tomb they assume grave robbers and then Jesus appears and their faith comes back to life and their message is about what we've seen we are witnesses and we have seen it so you know disguised for that don't forget that we're missing that it's important I don't think we should smooch over that they were playing Jesus on the road to emmaus with their confusion saying all we thought he was the Messiah we thought he was been one there to rescue Israel all those things what does Jesus say to them he says slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken he actually chastises them Andy he chastises them for not believing what believing in his own word the previous revelation of God and so whatever their confusion was at that moment Jesus chastises them for not believing what the prophets had spoken about him I mean I don't get the connection but I mean yeah but that's not really the point I'm making but anyways well and and just they just back to that to the signs and wonders issue when you say if someone rises from the dead I'm going with them and you know as well as I do and then I'm tying this specifically to the resurrection of Jesus and I make I'm making a point on that what is the foundation of your faith I mean why do you believe what you believe the word of the Living God okay I mean that in that sense I'll just come in here Jeff when when you are actually though evangelizing speaking to someone about Jesus about Christianity how does that make a difference because for Andy as far as I understand it he's gonna tell them about Jesus about his live death and resurrection and he's gonna say you should trust this this man you should trust in this and he's not gonna say and I'm also gonna tell you everything about the Old Testament and everything else in the scriptures because there's a certain whole other set of stuff you need to believe I'm assuming you're also going to tell him about Jesus his life death and resurrection but about how does your presuppositional approach kind of make it any different to the way Andy's gonna going to introduce people to the gospel because I don't really I really appreciate how you asked that Justin it's important because yes that is exactly what we do and we go out to the Mormon temple when we go out to downtown Phoenix when we go to the abortion clinic to go and and minutes to the mothers and fathers there we're preaching Christ we're preaching him crucified in his resurrection were calling people to repentance and faith but what we're talking about here is actually how we begin to engage in the defense of the faith because that's what we're talking about we're talking about about apologetics and what I think we need to recognize is that again from the Old Testament literally from the book of Genesis onward there's the assumption of the self attesting Word of God is the foundation of the proclamation and so what I'm saying is is that we're not basing it upon a neutral position of saying something like well there's this person historically that the people say he rose from the dead and so I'm going with what they say no we're saying it's actually much stronger than that there's a stronger appeal at the bottom of that let me ask you this question would there be a Bible if there had been no resurrection what can you explain that a little more would there be a Bible if there had been no we have the Bible but not not the old long prophets but I mean this extraordinary piece of literature we call the Bible with the Jewish the Hebrew Bible or Jewish Scriptures whatever you call it in the New Testament documents would that even exist for us if there had been no resurrection well I would say it'd be impossible for there to have not been a resurrection the 1st century Church the 1st century Church had a Bible one of the things that you talk about which I but when we have our Bible if there had been no resurrection well again when you ask the question like that it's interesting because the the Greeks of to a gent which the early Christians had just and this is yes or no I'm trying no actually I'm answering the question that Bible that they had that they actually knew about that was held up in the temple that they all had access to the law and the prophets had prophesied the resurrection of Jesus Christ it was a guaranteed and sure event in history but of course if Christ had not been raised from the dead then there and we'd be we'd be to be pitied would there be no faith of course but we would hope there would be no Bible whether there would be there would be not nothing to vote in terms of believing in this man who said he was the Messiah I know there would be no Bible correct well the Old Testament said that the Messiah was gonna rise again from the dead right sorta nobody expected a resurrection but if there had been a resurrection there would be no the bibl II and you and I would know virtually nothing about along the profits because we learn everything we learned about allowing the profits in church and it would have been you know relegated to the ado my leash or some other Babylonian myth and someone we too studied in school but there would be no Bible if there had not been a resurrection well I think that that's a non-sequitur in terms of trying to create a disjunction between you know no it's not no he's just one unified revelation and I think that's actually the the major point of conflict between us is that is that Christians historically have seen that this is there's an organic unity between the Old and New Testaments and acai I agree because Jesus rose from the dead in his story worth telling Gentiles begin to take the Hebrew Scripture seriously because they took a Hebrew spirit seriously Jesus again it's sequential can I can I before you come back Jeff before you before you come back Jeff I just wanted to kind of get Andy to tease that out a bit for those who maybe aren't completely following but I mean this this is kind of I think summed up in in one bit of your book way where you talk about the idea of Jesus first Bible second Andy yeah and and for you you you you kind of make the point in in in the book that those first Christians they didn't have the Bible we have they were literally doing the stuff that would end up in the New Testament and and so for them obviously it was the the news of Jesus's life death and resurrection that was forming the basis on which they were inviting people into this and to trust in Jesus and so on and so when you have passages like from Paul you know first Timothy all Scripture is god-breathed and so on you you think we have to understand that the that he's referring to the Jewish Scriptures and we're not we're not expecting everyone to to kind of take this on wholesale in order to be able to join this story that that's a secondary issue for you ultimately whether people ultimately kind of come you know come to the belief that the Bible is fully inspired and authoritative in everything that it that it I we know that there wasn't who the Bible the way we think of the Bible in terms of all this scripture mapped and wrapped and collected and protected I mean that the history of how we got our Bible is extraordinary it's the there's no way to explain it other than supernatural intervention from my perspective but for you know the first three hundred and eighty years or so the church in fact the church accomplished more before there was at the Bible than the next three hundred years in terms of even surviving temple and Empire and I've heard Jeff talk about some of that before so I'm not I mean I'm not discounting the Bible I'm just saying the foundation of our faith is not a text the foundation of our faith is an event Paul said that there there would be no in other words when Luke at the beginning of his gospel says this is amazing many think about this many have endeavored to write an account of the events that happened among us many how many people are gonna ever to write the accounts of my life not many okay so that something happened there was an explosion of interest they're doing their best to document it miraculously enough we have four accounts of the life of a you know a Nazarene rabbi I mean the whole thing's extraordinary and something new began because of the event of the resurrection that gave and where we all agree extraordinarily new context and I'm you know fuel and interest in the Jewish scripture Gentiles did not take the Jewish Scriptures that seriously until they began to take a particular Jew seriously Jesus so again again we get it all at one time I'm not discounting the inerrancy and fallibilities inspiration or importance about again the person who taught me this wrote and edited the book and Aaron C he you know so there's no there's no space it's just a matter of what did we want to tether people's faith to and I believe we need to tether their faith to the event that took the coward Peter and John and the guys that ran off to the you know brought them we find them in the book of Acts staring down the bear of the very people who crucified Jesus and they were amazed at you know their boldness so I just tie it to an event and and and and when it comes to that in that sense you used you feel that too often the church is trying to do too much work when they approach the skeptic and the non-believer by by kind of having to try and defend vast reams of Scripture and write that in that's the point is we the pressure is not on us to defend everything in the Bible in terms of it if we're having a conversation with somebody who won't give us enough time to even have these conversations which we all know is rarer and rarer the issue is and here's where we all agree the issue is who is Jesus and if I mean that that's it that's the most important question anybody can ask who is Jesus and you know I that's where it begins and once that question settled honestly I don't care if they become Calvinists or covenant or dispensational I don't really care I just want people to embrace the fact that Jesus Paul said that he died on the cross for our sin he was buried you know rose from the dead so that's the issue and then how we organize it how we categorize it those are interesting conversations to have but I think we're we also we agree is how do we get people to engage and that conversing and arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is who the Apostle Paul believed Jesus was well I think it's important if I could just meant just bring in here Justin that in first Corinthians 15 when the Apostle Paul talks about if Christ is not raised and our faith is in vain I think it's important to point to where he continues to go from there the foundation of his hope what the resurrection of Jesus Christ is based up in the abased in the Old Testament prophecies he mentions no it's not no it's not and it's based an event in his life he listened he was the first let's let's allow Jeff to finish his thought there and then I'll bring you back here yeah go ahead sorry so he then goes on to tell a story my point here is that the resurrection itself is not just an event in history it's an event in history that's connected to the promises of God which you would agree with and eh I know that you will but you're creating a disjunction at this point and you're saying it's just the events in history you just need to know about this event history the Apostle Paul in fact does in 1st Corinthians 15 yes he does quote scripture psalm 110:1 he must reign until he has put all of his enemies under his feet the last enemy is death and that's when he delivers the kingdom over to the father so he does actually connect the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah right inside there it sits in tandem my point here is that you you you have to see the resurrection the way that the early Christians did and that that is that it has meaning because it is connected to the promises of God in the biblical worldview it's not just an a miraculous event out there in the world sort of sustained I agree with all that let me finish the thought and this gets back to before I didn't get to finish the thought when God gives a test of a prophet he says even if they have signs and wonders but they lead you after other gods what's that mean God's previous revelation of himself is the standard it's the testing point so even if you have somebody rise again from the dead and Andy you and I know we're pastors you and I know that we have to deal with people who are deluded today by a lot of this you know these people who are doing these false miracles and making legs grow and you know bringing people up on stage that have been preset to come up there and stand up and all those things well there's signs there's wonders there's miracles there are people who have even claimed in the history to have raised people from the dead that's because there's a sign and wonder doesn't mean that actually accords with biblical truth the standard is the Word of God as the starting point that gives meaning to the resurrection of Jesus okay and come come back on the Sunday and then we'll go to a quick break again but Jeff I mean it starts there by saying but but all of Jesus's resurrection finds its meaning in the Old Testament promises and scriptures and of obviously Paul throughout his letters eese is referring to the Old Testament in the way in which Jesus is that that final fulfillment unexpected admittedly but fulfillment of those messianic promises in it and everything else and then you say you've got no problem with that obviously Andy so what's the disagreement where's the disagreement as you see it between you and thank you no oh yes where the disagreement is III I don't I don't know where the disagreeing I can tell you where it is going that jet if you'd let me I mean I mean this humbly not in any way arrogantly but you don't have to keep apologizing well if the thing is this Andy you and I are in a British a British English it's got to be very polite absent here I'm apologizing for interrupting I'm just making sure that we're making sure that we don't sound like you arrogant America so I think the point is is that Andy and I would both confess together we would be stand hand in hand together that there's prophecy of Jesus these prophecies give meaning to the resurrection of Jesus my point is is that I'm saying stand there as the grounding at all points and Andy is arguing that we just need to have an event driven just to announce the events the event is what gives it its foundation the event happens and what I'm saying is is that if there's no grounding underneath that event that gives it meaning and context then just it's just it's just a miraculous event claim and it's just as easily dismissed by someone like Ben Shapiro as says I find it very uninteresting okay quick response and then we'll go to a final break I think that that's not what I believe I think the event of the resurrection gave the Apostle Paul and Peter and again the referencing the road to emmaus the conversation suddenly they recontextualized they looked at their own scripture differently they saw things they'd never seen before they connect the dots that had never been connected but for the Apostle Paul the ultimate Pharisee it took a Damascus Road experience for him to acknowledge Jesus was who Jesus claimed to be and once he got straight with that then he was able to see the law and the prophets in a in a different light I gave one place there and that's an axe chapter 9 directly after the Apostle Paul's conversion as a Jewish rabbi it says that he takes a beeline for Damascus and he does what he goes directly to the synagogue and does argue with the Hellenistic Jews proving that Jesus is the Messiah why was he doing that from the basis of the Jewish scripture right yeah not saying hey guys I saw Jesus alive from the dead believe me he went there and he argued on the basis of the word of God the native that they took very seriously and he did that with everybody he spoke to about a reject your I'll come back to you Andy because I will continue this conversation after the break because obviously just in what you were saying there in that context of course Paul spoke to his Jewish audience from the scriptures and the questions posed is do we take a different approach as perhaps Paul did in different contexts so and we're coming back to this in a moment's time fascinating discussion today looking at Christianity the older New Testament Andy Stanley's new book irresistable has caused some controversy Geoff Durbin from apologia church and apologist Studios is with us to talk about it on today's edition of unbelievable and we'll be back in a moment time if you listen to unbelievable Justin brierley on premier Christian radio and enjoy the conversations between Christians and skeptics then this is the perfect app for you for the latest updates podcasts videos articles bonus content and much more download from Bolivar today [Music] welcome back to the final part of this week's edition of the show we're extending things out a little bit this week there's such an interesting conversation today between Andy Stanley and Jeff Durban we've been asking is it time to unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament today that's in light of Andy's new book irresistible reclaiming the new that Jesus unleashed for the world but but in fact I mean a lot of the conversation today is actually revolved around how we do present the claims of Christianity and to what extent we see the belief in the Bible as the inerrant inspired infallible Word of God is somehow primary or whether it's if you like the events that are attested to in those scriptures that are the foundation if you like and that's been where a lot of the conversation has revolved around I do want to get though to the issue of the Old Testament a bit more specifically in this last segment folks because inevitably Andy that's where a lot of the controversy and confusion in some ways of about the book and what you're preachers has come people thinking that you're effectively saying rather let as I mentioned like Marcion that second century heretic who said we just need to ditch the Old Testament you know it was almost a completely different different God for the hill the New Testament and as I understand it from what you're saying Andy you're you're not saying anything like that but in that last section Jeff was saying hang on when Paul went to the synagogue's he he showed them the G Jesus was the Messiah from the scriptures and we've got to start with the scriptures that's why he says you're missing a point there if you think we start with the event no we start with the scripture which the event is if you like the fulfillment of but but then so so what's your problem with that and and if we're not speaking to a specifically Jewish audience does that give us a different reason a different methodology Andy I think again these really not the Apostle Paul's word but I think this was his intent whatever it takes by I mean the Apostle Paul these are his words by all possible means that I might win some so if the Old Testament is an on-ramp great if the resurrection is an on-ramp great if my personal experience is an on-ramp great if brokenness and tragedy in a person's life is an on-ramp great if a sick child does not mean whatever the on-ramp is to faith I'm all for it and I think we would all three agree with that and so for some people the Old Testament isn't on ramp and I'm source never discount that the interesting thing is my Jewish friends who are Christians all of them came to faith the two of them came to faith all of them came to faith in Protestant churches none of them came to faith through a Jew through the Old Testament as an on-ramp but I had a professor at DTS Dallas Theological Seminary who did come to faith as a young Jewish college student through the on-ramp of of the Old Testament that was presented to him as by a Christian so I'm not I mean an on-ramp to faith or recognizing who Jesus is in that spark of life that comes to life once they hear and how they gonna hear if somebody does it go I'm a hundred percent for all of that so so again I and I think we would all three agree with that so I'm certainly not trying to remove any sort of on-ramp to faith but but what I'm getting though is that in your view for a post Christian society where there may be better began to start with the Bible says the bottom and you can the Bible says the Bible says the Bible says but here's the thing everybody else now knows what else the Bible says it's so now I'm begin a spitting match on the six-day creation young earth Old Earth Levitical law homosexuality I mean it's like oh gosh you know where the issue is who is Jesus that's the issue and if you get that straight the dominoes start falling in you know good directions for the most part the only way you can get there Andy is by saying the Bible says no we don't have to say that if I if I could finish the thought the Bible says that Jesus rose again from the dead it actually doesn't say that that's how you know Jesus rose from the dead because the biblical witness gives you that testimony that Jesus rose from the dead you just change changed terminology which is a very subtle but important shift in terminology I didn't that Bible is where you get the message that Jesus rose again from the dead well no it's it's not well explain that and explain that well what do you mean by saying the Bible doesn't say that Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible doesn't say anything John did Moses did David did fighting all did but it was only in the Bible once it got put in the Bible here's a way of thinking about it that's incoherent well no that's a lousy definition let's allow indeed finish his thought there Jeff yeah go ahead don't put you don't put something in a safe to make it valuable you put it in a safe because it's valuable the New Testament documents were collected and protected and meticulously copied because very early on they were recognized as valuable in in the 4th century these pre-existing valuable witnesses and documents were collected and put in the document that somebody we don't know who titled the Bible so sequentially that's how we got our Bible and so this is one of the things I argue for in my book in fact I've been teaching this for seven years now when we preach and teach instead of citing the Bible we just drop back and say John an eyewitness at the resurrection says Paul who steps up the pages of history as someone who hated the church says Jesus said you know we cite James the brother of Jesus what would it take to convince your brother who's the son of God James it drop-back cite the authors and again it's just a different way it's a different approach and it's obviously it's more accurate and and and it before you come back in Jeff and you believe actually that this is a more evangelistically effective way of presenting the claims as well yes because I've been doing it for years and the you know I I hear the stories read the emails and get to thank you knows hey I finally brought my brother and you know I yes it's more effective and it's what the early church did so it's what Jesus did sometimes jesus said too long the prophets sometimes Jesus says Moses sometimes Jesus says David so you know yeah and I suppose this is the point Jeff is that the early church they they were you know doing the stuff that we now see as this this authority of infallible Word in the New Testament so they work work by definition they weren't referring to all of the documents that we you that you would now say say say are the Word of God Jeff so so I think this is the point Andy's driving at his if they could do it so can we we don't have to as it were say the Bible says it's it's the testimony of who the Bible then records that that's the important part of that but yeah it's fired yeah yeah there's and there's there's just a difference in in perspective here and this this controversy actually goes back to the time of the Reformation in terms of is is it the scriptures that create the church is that the scriptures that have the ultimate self attesting authority or does the church recognize and and and and declare the the Scriptures to be the authoritative Word of God which which way are we going which part is the foundation and I think that's that's critical that we would agree 2nd Timothy 3:16 through 17 says all Scripture is they honest us it's breathed out by God so the the origin of Scripture is from God the Holy Spirit of God carries people along to write what they write and it's interesting so why don't we just cite the people that were carried along well let me just let me just point point this out that in in the the time of the Apostles after Jesus death and resurrection and ascension the Apostle Peter refers to the writings of the Apostle Paul that were happening in his day and he says in 2nd Peter 3:16 he says talking about things that Paul is writing they're difficult to understand he says there are some things in them that are hard to understand what's the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction as they do the other scriptures so interesting is it in the time of the Apostles during the writing of these works the Apostle Peter equates the letters of Paul the writings of Paul with the other holy scriptures he's equated the writings of Paul with the Old Testament Scriptures you're making my point no I'm actually going against your point what I'm saying is that they were just writing letters and then the church comes later and says well yeah we recognize that as authoritative what they were giving was Theon who stas breathe out words of God so what I was saying was is that you are telling people today that Jesus rose again from the dead because why the authoritative Word of God tells me so that's where I get it from that word of God and I think it's important to recognize that this station is that it is I think appropriate and I don't think we should shy away from this to be able to tell the world while the Word of God says I don't think we should shy away from that and I think that's one of the concerns I have with this apologetic methodology is teaching Christians to actually be afraid to say while God says mm-hmm and and I think that is the ultimate concern of many who would take the view that Jeff does that the Bible is true inspired a Living Word we should be able to stand on it and preach from it without having to kind of bow to the the neutral ground as Jeff puts it of you know as though as though we're required to learn it it's not incorrect to say the Apostle John wrote it's not incorrect to say Luke wrote it's not an it's not incorrect to say the Apostle I mean there's an it's I'm not incorrect it's just different terminology again what ever on-ramp gets a person into the text and keeps a conversation going I'm all for it well let's talk about an on-ramp that sometimes puts people off which which in your view is often is the Old Testament then it's the fact that with a lot of people maybe have issues with that and that they don't understand it there's mysterious there's bits that hard to make sense of in today's contemporary culture Andy and and this is where I think the a lot of the the debate has revolved around I think we've actually covered a lot of the the underlying issues in this discussion so far but when it comes to the words of Jesus and the way he refers to himself in the Old Testament he obviously says I I didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it so to what extent you know is what you have in your mind that idea that the law is no longer binding on Christians today that it's obsolete in that sense because a lot of people I think have then assumed you're also saying that about the Old Testament the Old Testament is somehow an old thing it's obsolete that we don't kind of need to worry about or think about it anymore well the word obsolete is as you know is not original with me so I would say that only the author of Hebrews but anyway and within he meant something by that and it's pretty clear the the challenging thing for most Christians is they don't make a distinction and it's preachers fault a distinction between the Sinai covenant and the Old Testament the Old Testament includes more than the Sinai covenant but from you know the Sinai covenant forward to Malachi everything's happening within that I will if you will relationship between God and Israel other than Jonah then some you know other literature so but know that God made a covenant with Israel I mean you know you can read it in Exodus and we weren't there and it wasn't a covenant with me and it wasn't a covenant with you we're we are blessed by God's covenant with Abraham through you know the nation of Israel God will bring about Messiah and we've all been blessed through him so the differentiator to me is the Old Covenant the Old Covenant being the Sinai covenant and the new covenant established by Jesus and we've been invited to be included in the new covenant thanks to the you know God's providential work from the time of Abraham on so to me again this is it's just very sequential it's very simple and to what extent in your view Andy does that make some of the Old Testament laws like for instance the Ten Commandments irrelevant because you say you say that here's the thing everybody agree everybody agrees that we don't keep the the Sinai covenant in total everybody agrees with that most of it's illegal in the United States the UK and Canada are not most of it but much of it so then we're down to which what do we leave in and what do we leave out what do we leave out and that's where the disagreement is and there's groups that believe we could have categories the moral law the ceremonial law the civil law and then there's others that say no it's just one we can't we don't get the privilege of slicing and dicing this was God's covenant with the nation of Israel and we're not Israel and we have a new covenant so I mean we can talk about that a long time but they're they're just different ways of differentiating I mean you talk in the book about the fact that you find it almost strange that some people want to put up you know monuments to the Ten Commandments in the church when when we've got the commandments of Jesus which in your view have superseded that Old Covenant in that way well and we have the writings of the Apostle Paul who teases out and flushes out what Jesus meant when he said I'm to love you as God through Christ loved me I mean it is just better it's clearer I mean at this again I don't want to go off-topic you can keep all the 10 commandments and be a terrible husband terrible friend terrible employee but you can't take first Corinthians 13 or the fruit of the Spirit and be a terrible friend father mother husband or wife so the fruit of the Spirit the manifestation of God's Spirit in us has manifested through love joy peace patience kindness gentleness self-control I mean those attributes connected to what does it look like to love as God through Christ loved us are so compelling and they're so powerful I just don't know why people would want to go back and say I'm but you know I I keep the 10 commandments yeah if you if you're looking in the spirit you're gonna keep the Ten Commandments but the Ten Commandments are like a safety net that's kind of a how low can you go like civil law is the the fruit of the Spirit and loving is God through Christ's love best that is inspirational it's it's meaning again it raises the standard like Jesus did you know in the Sermon on the Mount so what that's a different way of you know looking at Sinai covenant in the New Covenant okay Jeff your term what what do you make of the way Andy pauses between the the Old Covenant and the way that we as Christians are supposed to live in light of what Jesus has revealed well I think it's this is such a vitally important discussion to have because it kind of goes back to the grounding we were talking about before and I'll get to some of those points that Andy made there in terms of why would you want to go back to these Commandments when now we have the Spirit of God I think that's exactly the point though is that the promises in the Old Testament about the coming kingdom of the Messiah about Christ's coming to bring salvation to the world we're not just about forgiveness in Salvation there were bigger promises to that and they were promises not to the Jews not just to the Jews but to the world those promises are for us and if we make it disjunctive and we say well those are all just you know sign from Sinai and they're just to the Jews they're not to us then we actually lose the benefits of the promises of the empowering of the Spirit of God to keep the law that are contained in those very books just a couple examples we don't have a lot of time to do them all today Jeremiah 31:31 the promise there before it even gets to forgiveness and salvation is that God says he's going to do something new not like he did before and this is the thing not he's gonna dissolve the law do away with the law he says he's gonna put his Torah his law within them now he's gonna ride it now not on stone tablets outside the People of God but now he's gonna write that law the law within the people of God and he they would be careful to obey it because now they actually relate to God in a new way empowered by God's Spirit with his law written within them Isaiah 2 is another spectacular promise about the coming kingdom of the Messiah where and this is where it's not just Jews it says the nations are gonna stream up to the mountain of God that's not just Jews that's the nation's and it says that Isaiah chapter 2 clearly says that the law the Torah was going to go forth that's a constituent element of the kingdom of the Messiah and his salvation to the world is the law itself gonna go forth from the people of God Isaiah 42 is another critical promise about the Messiah about him coming to bring not just salvation but establishing justice on the earth and then it says that the coastlands wait for his Torah his law is equal 36 is I think the answer to what this dandy is asking for in terms of spirit-filled spirit-empowered obedience to the - to God himself but it's interesting because he's eager 36 talks about sprinkling clean water on us cleansing us from our idols praise God for that and it says that he removes a heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh and he puts a spirit within people and causes them he says to observe his statutes well which statutes is Ezekiel referring to well the constituent element again there is the law of God is part and parcel to what God is going to do that's new and the New Covenant is we're gonna relate to God in a new way none of the laws thrown away the law now is within us and we're empowered by God's spirits to bear fruit to God in obedience to that law but this is critical there's a reference point here that's being missed when we say that 10 commandments are irrelevant we're disagreeing with the Apostles who quote from it repeatedly when we say that the law of God is is no longer obligatory towards us today I think that we're violating what is so clearly taught in the New Testament and I'll just give you a couple examples maybe you can maybe respond to some of these Andy when you say that we're no longer obligated to accountable to the 10 commandments you're not accountable to the Jewish law we're done with that God has done something new I would say well toe let see Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6 verses 1 through 2 where he just assumes the continuity of children of their parents and the Lord honor your father and your mother now he doesn't do it was saying now brothers and sisters we know that this is obsolete and done away with and we're no longer obligated to that law we're not under that law he just assumes the continuity of that law within the New Covenant and by the way that's post cross post resurrection of post ascension he also he doesn't just assume the animal of the sorry they Ten Commandments he assumes animal husbandry laws animal husbandry laws in first corinthians 9:8 after the resurrection he says do I say these things on human authority does not the law say the same for it is written in the law of Moses you shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain is it for oxen that God is concerned does this is interesting timing wise does he not certainly speak for our sake it was written for our sake what was animal husbandry laws how to treat things that are labouring for you and he assumes the continuity within the New Covenant of that principle with an animal husbandry laws he does it with judicial law in first Timothy 5:19 he says don't receive an accusation against an elder unless it's in the basis of two to three witnesses that's judicial law he assumes the continuity of the rightness of the death penalty in judicial proceedings in acts 25 11 by saying if I've committed anything for which I deserve to die he says I do not seek to escape death he does it even with and I'll end with this one keeping the festival in first Corinthians 5:8 he doesn't say now go back to the shadows go back to the dress rehearsal go back to the training wheels he says because of Christ this is how you now to view the festival let us therefore celebrate the festival not with the old leaven the leaven of malice and evil but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth what we were supposed to see according to the New Testament and the New Testament gives us the interpretation we're supposed to assume the continuity of God's law unless of course the lawgiver gives us divine revelation of how we're supposed to root to see it we're supposed to see now that those shadows those training wheels are fulfilled in Jesus and you're to see it in a new way but he doesn't say so throw it out it's over with that's why we still have a priest today that's why we still have a temple today that's why we still have a sacrifice today but now we have it in its fulfilled non dress-rehearsal way but it's assumed throughout the New Testament so just to summarize that that there's an awful lot says Jeff in the Old Testament which we're in continuity with in the New Testament in which which Paul and the Apostles are quoting from and using as a basis for the life in which they then call people to to experience that in in a new way in an in a fulfilled way what's your view on that handy well again he went in a circle and ended up with we have a different kind of temple it's new new new new new new new I agree with the his conclusion and I I mean he doesn't keep the Sabbath I guess I mean I mean we and again where do we get permission to slice and dice the Sinai covenant and we're gonna keep the Ten Commandments but we're not gonna keep the penalties that go with those Commandments and I mean we just nobody lives that way and if you want to that's that is an approach to the New Testament there's a much simpler approach Jesus established a new covenant he said here's your marching orders here are the terms and conditions you are to love there's not the way you choose to love you are to love as I have loved you this is written in your heart you don't even it's not you'd only have to commit it to memory you just memorize it you were to love as I have loved you the next day you know he put on a demonstration of love that you know took their breath away took his breath away and resum the dead and the church has been going ever since and it's so interesting that he brought up the Ephesians passage because everybody who brings up the Ephesians passage you know love you know children obey your parents it's the only one they bring up that specific from the Ten Commandments because it's really the only one that seems to be taken but it is not the basis of his argument the basis of his argument is to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ that's the theme of that passage submit to one another out of reverence for Christ or at the beginning of the chapter walk in the way of love just as Christ loved and gave himself for us a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God and then everything that flows from those thematic verses are simply applications and he references the Old Testament law but not as an authority but as an application of submit yourself to God out of reverence submit yourself to one another out of reverence for Christ so again we you know we can talk about a long about the sequencing of Scripture and how to interpret Scripture and if a Christian wants to figure out how to integrate the Sinai covenant into the New Covenant knock yourself out but the other thing that you know your listeners either know or should know is that in the first century first century Jews felt no compulsion to abandon the Sinai covenant it was still their covenant so of course they lived it out I mean throughout acts we find them going to the temple it meant something different they were trying to figure out how do i integrate my newfound faith with my you know my previous way of life but yeah in fact Messianic Jews I mean that's the point of being a Messianic Jew they still embrace a version of the Sinai covenant well of course they should they're Jewish it just never included me to begin with so again that's just a different way of seeing all that but I'm not discounting the importance I certainly know it's missing an ik through and through so there's there's there's no space there and at the end of the day we treat our families and we treat people the way that God in Christ has treated us that's from whom we take our marching orders not the old covenant the new covenant the teachings of the Apostle Paul so I'm gonna give a chance for you guys to just give some final fill so Jeff well I'll start with you and then and then I'll have undefended finish up well I appreciate so much being with you today love and respect you and I'd love to maybe come hang out sometime and hash these issues out although I read in your books analogy that I really hated because you use the golf tee analogy so it can't be golf because I think it's from the devil yeah I don't play golf so okay I don't I don't fish I I'm the greatest husband because I don't have any hobbies I'm just home all the time okay well I'll just say that I don't think Andy really responded to any the substance of the argument that I made and when he says that our commander marching orders in the New Testament arts are love as I have loved you the question is this how did Jesus love them let them according to God's law which says master what's the greatest commandment in the law Jesus says hear o Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one you should love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength and you should love your neighbor as you love yourself that's quoting from Leviticus by the way mmm all the law and the prophets are built upon these so we're gonna love like Jesus then we're gonna have a love for God and love for one another and once that look like well according to Jesus all the law and the prophets are love God love neighbor the Ten Commandments love God love neighbor even down to the judicial judicial law and animal husbandry laws have to do love love for neighbor so I think we we have a problem when we disconnect that and we say what Jesus teaches a really supreme and valuable way of love that's so different from that harsh Old Testament law no Jesus teaches us what the law was pointing to all along this is how you love God and love neighbor and when I when he talks about the Old Testament law not quoted in the New Testament as an authority I think you're gonna see again different from what I just quoted from in 1st Corinthians chapter 9 verse 8 even down to something that can see can be seen as so irrelevant to Christians today when we read that animal husbandry laws is he says this do I say these things on human authority does not the law say it the same then he quotes the law and he says does he not certainly speak for our sake it is written for our sake not on human authority on what God's Authority and so I think that it's important to recognize that the again Ten Commandments are quoted with the assumption of continuity but you're supposed to see it now in a spirit-filled new covenant way as and if somebody says well how we're supposed to know that I would say the New Testament gives you divine revelation on how you're supposed to do these things judicial judicial law is assumed as continuous the death penalty festivals all of that and so when and this is the final thing I was saying that this is this is I think so critical in Ephesians chapter 2 the Apostle Paul is addressing the issue of the holiness code like what are we supposed to keep how come not the dietary laws the holiness code and the answer is so clear from the New Testament it's all throughout those were dress rehearsals those were training wheels those don't apply anymore because now we have the substance who is Christ and now we're filled with the Spirit of God but what's interesting here is as Paul's addressing that very issue in Ephesians chapter 2 about the holiness code and all the rest and throughout he says in Ephesians 2:11 therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh called uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision which is made in the flesh by hands remember and this is critical here guys that you were at the same time separated from Christ alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to thee he says this covenants plural of promise singular having no hope and without God in the world but now in Christ Jesus you who were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ for he himself is our peace who has made us both one and broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of Commandments expressed in ordinances and so what Paul does there as he says that you just raised he just made my point well actually actually I have it I've made the opposite point because what he says is that now you were once strangers to these covenants plural of promise you were strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel but now you've brought nearer to what to the Commonwealth of Israel to the covenants plural of promise if we've been brought near to the covenants of promise and we've been brought in there not just to the Abrahamic covenant and II but to the blessings of what God - Moses - the blessings of the Davidic covenant in Christ we've been caught near to the blessings of all those covenants including the land right and this is what I would say well now the Bible teaches us by divine revelation that that I promise is actually the whole world not just the land that's what the Bible teaches us but it also says this and this is where all end and this is something I encourage everyone to go read Deuteronomy chapter 4 does not see the law of God the way that Andy describes it merely as sort of like you know law and harsh and just you know it's just a temporary covenant kind of a thing it says that the nations were supposed to see this law and say what kind of nation is this that has a God so near to it as this and has rules and statutes of law so righteous as this law was supposed to be seen as a blessing to the world it was justice and righteousness and goodness that the world can look in it and say what kind of God is this that has a law so perfect as this yeah I think when we when we cast that away I think we lose the benefits that are promised in Jeremiah 31 Isaiah 2 Isaiah 42 in Ezekiel 36 okay thank you Sinai the Sinai law was so superior to the Cain and I Egyptian Sumerian laws at the time that's the great point and irresistible I talked about how much better it was for women for foreigners for everybody it was superior in every way and it pointed to and it substantiated and supported the idea that Israel would eventually be a light to the Gentiles so I agree with all that I just don't think that you and I are involved or you know connected to that covenant we weren't there it wasn't for us what I mean I'll give you your final moment here now Andy one thing that did make me laugh for nose yeah I'm reading your book was you obviously anticipated that people like Jeff and many others would would disagree with you or I guess in your view misunderstand what you're saying you at one point you said why would I blow up my career by writing this book which made me laugh out loud yeah but yeah but okay but we've heard Jeff you know essentially laying it down and saying this we in so many ways we're connected to that Old Testament law and the all of all of what Jesus has done is fulfill and help us to to live it in this new way and often you're saying I agree with you Jeff but obviously you've got a different sense of of how exactly then we want to do we disagree over continuity and discontinuity so let me just read what Jesus said a new command I give you which means we miss this I am stepping in front of Moses this is something but I'm giving you a new command as I love one another to which they thought well that's not new to which Jesus would have said I'm not through because I'm about to redefine it as I have loved you so you must love one another and then here it is I mean we've all preached it and taught it memorized it by this by this one thing by this everyone will know that you are mine not Moses by this everyone will know that you're my disciples if you love one another the way that I have loved you and then again he gave His life and defined love we don't get to define life so you can go the complicated way and try to figure out continuity and discontinuity those are fascinating conversations or you can just go the simple way and say my responsibility is to love you the way that God and Christ love me which is sacrificial it's never self-serving it's always honoring it's always you first he punctuated by punctuated it by washing the disciples feet and say now if you ever get too big for your britches because you're Peter and Paul in the rock stars and the book of Acts you just remember this night because in my kingdom not like the Gentile world if you want to be great in my kingdom you must be a servant you must be a slave of all you get in the back of the back of the line that's what it's going to look like and that got the attention ultimately of the Empire in the world we're gonna just we are gonna leave it there gents thank you so much it's been it's been a long one I went a bit long today so if you're listening via radio go go and check out the podcast for today to get the full thing but Jeff and Andy thank you so much for being with me on today's show I'm sure there'll be lots more involvement and discussion about this after it's aired and gone up online we if you're listening to our podcast gonna make the video Today Show available as well so do go and check that out at the unbelievable YouTube channel and do go and check out the book it's called irresistible reclaiming the new that jesus unleashed for the world you can get it wherever you look for books online and if you're more on Jeff apology apology as studios.com is the place to go for more of their resources and videos and so on but for the moment Andy and Jeff thank you so much for what's been a really really interesting conversation today for more conversations between Christians and skeptics subscribe to the unbelievable podcast and for more updates and bonus content sign up to the unbelievable newsletter you

Channel: Unbelievable?

Views: 200,632

Rating: 4.7235484 out of 5

Keywords: unbelievable, justin brierley, premier christian radio, christianity, atheism, philosophy, faith, theology, andy stanley, jeff durbin, Bible, Old Testament, Irresistible, North Point, Apologia studios, apologetics

Id: yji0fqtVEw8

Length: 93min 40sec (5620 seconds)

Published: Fri May 31 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/[deleted]]

I feel like Stanley is a theology chameleon who is overly pragmatic. Hearing him joke about Calvinism with Leighton Flowers and then bring up election multiple times with Durbin just tells me he’s not so concerned about thinking rightly about these things, and in fact he admits this twice toward the end when they talk about covenants

[u/maclin95]

It’s alarming to me that Andy disagrees and is annoyed when Jeff says the foundation of his faith is the word of God, and when he says the Bible tells us about the resurrection. I understand his point that this is just a different and more appealing approach to unbelievers. However, for one of the most influential pastors in America to talk about the Bible the way he does is dangerous. Biblical inerrancy is constantly under attack, and his view certainly isn’t helping.

[u/Autotheos]

I swear near the end Stanley was about to say “my method is clearly working because look at the size of my church” but instead said “my method is clearly working... well because it is”

[u/epistleofdude]

Andy Stanley is becoming a cartoonish caricature. He's doing his best to imitate Marcion (Marcionism) who rejected the Old Testament, because the God of the OT is wrathful, while Jesus merciful. Of course, nevermind minor details like Jesus speaking more often and more clearly about hell than most the OT, and the OT describing God as merciful, forgiving, full of steadfast love, and so on. Instead, Stanley doesn't want to "offend" modern sensibilities by bringing up the God of the OT, so it's better to "unhitch" Christianity from the OT. /s

[u/68guns1]

I have read the book and watched the video. I find a lot of comments against Andy Stanley are things he either says “ i don’t disagree with that” or “ I agree”.

My main worry in the video was that Durbin seems to be very close to saying we need Christ AND the law. That is a dangerous position to hold.

Solo Christo