What's Known, What's Not Known, and What Should Have Been Known

"We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He comes from" (John 9:29 ESV).

The religious leaders' first statement: "We know that God has spoken to Moses." This testimony from the religious leaders is true, good, and beautiful in itself, but it is rendered insufficient due to their rejection of Jesus. As Jesus had previously said to the religious leaders of His day: "If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of me" (John 5:46 ESV). And Jesus had already declared His origin: "I have come down from Heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38 ESV).

Andy Stanley on the Bible

Among the points that he made in his June 30, 2024 message "Broken and Grateful," Andy Stanley–founder and preacher for the North Point Ministries megachurch network–taught the following: 

1. The Bible is a collection of books, rather than a single book.

2. The authority of the Bible is less than the authority of Christ.

3. The Old Testament is for historic Israel, not for the Church.

To address each of these in turn:

1. The Bible is a collection of books, rather than a single book.

Recognizing the Bible as a collection of books–with various writing styles and points-of-view from various authors–is not wrong, but the fundamental unity of the Bible should not be downplayed. And it seems that Stanley is trying to downplay the unity of Scripture. Regarding the canon of Scripture, Stanley asserted:

This statement ['all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me'] has been reduced to simply another statement or another verse in the Bible–equated with every other statement or verse in the Bible–and that is tragic, because Jesus said this 300 plus years before the first Bible was ever assembled.

In response to this, we should note:

- Obviously, the Old Testament was already assembled before the time of Christ, and it was cited by Christ as Scripture.

- Even while the New Testament was still being written, we see writings of the New Testament being accepted as having canonical status. This is evident in Paul's quotation from the Gospel of Luke along with Deuteronomy, found in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and in Peter's reference to Paul's writings as Scripture in 1 Peter 3:15-16.

- Historian W.H.C. Frend notes that the collection of the four gospel accounts and the Apostle Paul's epistles were commonly used in Church worship–being understood to have divine authority–by about A.D. 80.

Therefore, we see that the canon was largely recognized long before the time-frame Stanley seems to indicate.

Stanley's placing the 'assembly' of Scripture at a late date is done in service of seeing the Bible as fragmentary, rather than unified. And seeing the Bible as fragmentary, rather than unified, is done in service of his next (and main) point:

2. The authority of the Bible is less than the authority of Christ.

Regarding the authority of the Bible vs. the authority of Christ, Stanley asserted:

If you use this language [because "the Bible" is a term invented by men long after Matthew wrote this passage]: the Bible says that Jesus is our ultimate authority, not the Bible.

The words and works of Christ, recorded in the Bible, bring clarity to the rest of the Bible. The types and shadows of the Old Testament become clear in Christ. The way that the Old Testament should be applied (and should not be applied) within the Church is set forth in how Jesus referred to the Old Testament. 

However, to set the authority of Christ against the authority of Scripture is unChristlike. When overcoming the temptations of Satan, Jesus appealed to the authority of Scripture, and the devil's erroneous use of Scripture did not cause Jesus to switch to another strategy (see Matthew 4:1-11). When answering the Pharisees' erroneous views of divorce, Jesus appealed to the authority of Scripture, and the religious leaders' erroneous use to Scripture did not cause Jesus to switch to another strategy (see Matthew 19:1-9). When explaining His death, burial, and resurrection to His followers, Jesus took them to the Scriptures (see Luke 24:26-27).

The apostle Paul, commissioned by Jesus, taught,

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV).

It is Scripture that allows the man of God to "be complete, equipped for every good work". Considering Scripture as a whole, it is Scripture that allows us to know the words and (specific) works of Christ. As the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, the New Testament had not yet been completed, and so the primary idea of "Scripture" for him would have been the Old Testament. The Old Testament is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". And this brings us to Stanley's next point:

3. The Old Testament is for historic Israel, not for the Church.

In addition to the way "Scripture" is used in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the Apostle Paul wrote:

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

Earlier in Romans, quoting from Genesis 15:6 ("Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness"), the Apostle Paul noted:

"But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for [Abram's] sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord" (Romans 4:24 ESV, emphases added). The Old Testament shows us that righteousness was always imputed to God's people through faith alone.

Applying a specific verse from the law of Moses (“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain”), the Apostle Paul wrote:

"Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake" (1 Corinthians 9:10a ESV).

The Old Testament is a book for the Church, better understood by those who read it after the promised Messiah has come. Parts of the Old Testament scriptures are applied to the Church in different ways than they would have been applied to national Israel. The sacrificial system has been fulfilled in Christ, who is the final, perfect sacrifice, so we no longer keep the ceremonies of Old Testament worship. We are not under the same governmental structure as Israel was in Old Testament times, so we look to the principles of the law to guide our decision-making, without necessarily trying to implement details of the Old Testament law. However, there are moral laws (especially in the Ten Commandments) that are repeated verbatim as still binding upon people in the New Testament era (see Ephesians 6:1-3).

The Church must not "unhitch" from the Old Testament (as Stanley has previously asserted); rather, we should look to the Bible to see how the Old Testament should be applied in light of the completed work of Christ.

Andy Stanley on Saddleback Being De-credentialed by the SBC

In his June 30, 2024 message "Broken and Grateful," Andy Stanley–founder and preacher for the North Point Ministries megachurch network–decried biblical "fundamentalists" who foster an "insider-focused" mentality. As an example, Stanley called out the Southern Baptist Convention for finding that Rick Warren's Saddleback Church is not in friendly cooperation with the Convention.

Stanley said: 

Last year, [Rick Warren's] denomination [the Southern Baptist Convention] kicked him out of the denomination: for something immoral? No. Something illegal? No. Something that had to do with money? No. Because he had some addiction? No. They kicked him out because he had the nerve to ordain three female staff members, who were functioning as pastors … and they kicked him out of the church. You don't get any more insider-focused than that.

I'm one of the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention who voted to uphold the SBC Executive Committee's decision that Saddleback is not in friendly cooperation with the Convention. We voted the way that we did because we do not think that ordaining women as pastors is consistent with the New Testament instructions concerning church leadership, therefore the influence that Saddleback's messengers to the Convention or the decisions made by missionaries from Saddleback sent out by the International Missions Board or North American Mission Board of the SBC would not necessarily be in line with what we believe the New Testament to teach about church leadership.

We did not kick Rick Warren out of any church, nor does the SBC have the authority to do so. We did not make any pronouncement concerning Rick Warren's spiritual state, nor does the SBC have the authority to do so.

Yesterday, while visiting family out-of-state, I joyfully worshiped at a Presbyterian church. The Presbyterian church practices infant baptism. I believe that they are wrong to do so, but I felt no need to even mention it to anyone there. But if a member church of the SBC started practicing infant baptism, we would not allow that church to remain as cooperating members of the Convention, because the way that this ordinance of Christ is conducted [as applying to only infants or applying to believers only] is an important enough issue (with important enough implications) that denominational resources must be spent in cooperation with congregations that agree about the proper subjects of baptism.

Regarding these sorts of issues (whether women pastors or infant baptism), there are certainly other parachurch ministries that can be done across denominational lines and there are opportunities for worship with brothers and sisters in other denominations. But believing that certain second-order issues can form appropriate denominational boundaries does not necessarily make someone sinfully "insider-focused".

"Disciples of Moses"

And they reviled him, saying, "You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. (John 9:28 ESV)

they = the Jewish religious leaders (those who should have taken leadership in making disciples of the Messiah)

reviled: the idea of being Jesus' disciples should have filled the religious leaders with praise; instead, it filled them with bitterness and anger

him = the blind man who had been healed and who had only sought to give an honest testimony of what his healer had done for him

"You are His disciple": this statement is not quite accurate (not yet), because the healed man did not yet have adequate knowledge of Jesus' identity

"we are disciples of Moses": this statement is false; if they were true disciples of Moses, then they would have followed the Messiah, to whom Moses pointed

Insincere Questions

25 He answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” 26 They said to him, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” 27 He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?” (John 9:25–27 ESV) 

The healed man, unlike his parents, did not give in to evasion out of fear for the religious leaders. The man said "I do not know" out of a genuine lack of knowledge concerning Jesus' identity. For all the healed man knew, Jesus may have been merely a human prophet and thus–strictly speaking–a sinner, like all men. As seen in subsequent verses, the man doubts Jesus is a sinner in the way His accusers mean. The accusatory religious leaders ask for the healed man's account again, not as a genuine question, but as a means of intimidating the man, hoping he will change his story. The man sees through their tactic and asks a question of his own. The answer to the healed man's question should have been a genuine "yes".

"Give glory to God."

So for the second time they called the man who had been born blind and said to him, "Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner." (John 9:24 ESV) 

The religious leaders commanded the healed man to give glory to God in one sentence, then they violated their own command in the next sentence, falsely accusing God the Son and dishonoring the Lord of glory. Hypocritical sinners accused the sinless one of sin.