UNBELIEVABLE: Should We UNHITCH From the Old Testament? | Andy Stanley vs. Jeff Durbin

We need to unhitch our Christianity from the Old Testament as well. I'm not suggesting the two testaments are not equally inspired. My point is they aren't equally applicable.

I just got heartburn. That that one, that's a quote from Stanley's book.

That one gave me indigestion. That is a garbage take. That that's that's two week old spicy garbage.

Oh, boy. Shut up, Nate. All right. Let's let's let's get into Durbin's response here. 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. What is the foundation of your faith? I mean, why do you believe what you believe?

The word of the living God? OK, I mean, in that sense,

Zing, this is going really badly for Stanley, but it would for anybody who wanted to make the kind of claim that he's making.

It's pastor versus pastor on this edition of Debate Teacher Reacts. Andy Stanley debates

Jeff Durbin on a very odd position, unhitching Christianity from the Old Testament.

What does that even mean? Who makes the better arguments? We're about to get into it. This is an older video. It came out a few years back, but it has been highly requested by many of you.

And so buckle your seatbelts because things are about to get interesting. First, welcome back to Wise Disciple. I'm Nate, and I'm helping you become the effective

Christian that Jesus wants you to be. Make sure to like and subscribe to the channel as the majority of you who watch are not yet subscribed.

We are on the road to 200 ,000 subs, my friends, and I'd love to get your help on that. Also, if you think this is an important discussion, would you share this video with someone else?

Finally, don't miss out on the special discounts. We're running through Logos Bible software. These discounts are so wonderful and amazing.

They're constantly refreshed all the time. Logos is actually giving away free books every month just for signing up.

And these are good books that you can read and glean insights from. So go check those out. It's Logos .com

forward slash Wise Disciple. Well, let's start with unhitch. Yeah. What do you mean by unhitching the

Christianity from the Old Testament? I don't want to spend too much time on this. So just interrupt me if this. So this is good.

Good for Briarley. That's what we need to start all debates off with, which is a definition of terms at the outset.

So the two interlocutors don't talk around each other and miss drawing out clash. All of this trades on what

Stanley means by unhitch when he says that, you know, we should unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament.

It goes too long. That was a term I used in a particular sermon in a particular series,

I guess, really almost 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 the story going narrative wise through Acts.

So I spent three weeks on Acts. So in the message and Acts 15, where I talk about the Jerusalem Council and this momentous decision to and the word

I used 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 grownups.

I made the comment, hey, and perhaps those of us modern Christians. So I don't watch

Stanley and I haven't seen the series that he's referring to. But it sounds like what he did was to point to the

Jerusalem Council in order to teach something to his church. Now, we have to understand the Jerusalem Council and there's just way too much to say about it.

But suffice to say, the original followers of Jesus did not appear to have any intention of ceasing

Jewish custom. They were perfectly fine with continuing to go to the temple and performing the various rituals prevalent in first century

Judaism. That's why the first description of the early church includes attending the temple in Acts chapter two.

That's why you'll see Peter and John going to the temple to pray in Acts chapter three. That's why it says in chapter five that all the

Christians gathered together in Solomon's portico. It's because they were continuing to observe all of the customs of Israel.

There was no interruption with regard to any of these things. The difference was those particular

Jews had found their Messiah in Jesus Christ. But then something happened when the

Gentiles started believing, which is what Jesus had always always prepared his disciples for. Now, all of a sudden, there's this question about what to do with folks who were not raised in this

Jewish context. Should they worship Jesus only or should they become practicing

Jews as well? That's what the Jerusalem council was trying to answer. Acts chapter 15, verse seven. And after there had been much debate,

Peter stood up and said to them, Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that by my mouth, the

Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe in God who knows the heart bore witness to them by giving them the

Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. And he made no distinction between us and them having cleansed their hearts by faith.

Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. And so, as Stanley points out, you know, the

Gentiles who desire to follow Jesus should observe what's sometimes referred to as the

Noahic covenant. Verse 28, for it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality.

If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. These requirements were on top of, you know, repentance and saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Many were being baptized as well. This right here is how the Gentiles should live as Christians, according to the

Jerusalem Council. But notice something. They appealed to the Old Testament to figure this out.

Did they not? They even quoted from Amos. In order to draw their conclusion about what to do.

Is that unhitching the Old Testament from Christianity? Does this support Andy Stanley or not?

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, so again, it sounds like Stanley is claiming that the early church, which did not consist of only

Gentiles, unhitched themselves from the Old Testament. And his support comes out of Acts chapter 15, where the

Gentile believers were only told to adhere to certain kinds of traditions. Abstain from idols, idolatrous things and immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.

But does it say that they were also to abstain from the Old Testament? Was that one of the requirements?

So remember, Briarley just asked Stanley for a definition of unhitch. And then Stanley just told a story about how he used the phrase, how he used that word unhitched.

But did he really explain what it means? So what I'm doing right now is I'm just walking this out loud,

OK, I'm walking together with you and talking out loud. Hopefully soon we'll get to some cross -examination.

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 two were 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 came out in September and nobody knows anything about publishing. You know, you don't. So these are all interesting stories, but he was asked to define what the word means.

I haven't heard a definition yet. Have you? Get a book out that quick. So 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 who drop in from time to time, you know, may misunderstand my approach.

And I I take responsibility for that. Well, thanks. OK, so that's the brief history of how

I came to use the words. Not what Stanley was asked. And I'm not saying that he didn't answer like on purpose, but, you know, maybe he just started riffing and he missed the question.

But the fact remains, he didn't answer the question. Explaining, obviously, some of the background to 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 what your primary concern is, is with reaching the next generation, a post -Christian generation, which, as far as you can see, 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 you're trying to say, well, actually, we need to go back to the early church because they didn't have the

Bible as we have either. And just take us through that. What what what what you're responding to, how you think that.

So, again, if Stanley is saying that that the early church did not have the

Bible, I would just like to know, what did they read? Remember, a moment ago, we noticed that the early church attended the temple, right?

Look at Acts chapter two, verse forty six. And day by day, this is the early church attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes.

They receive their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God. Right. What do you think was read at the temple?

Yeah, you guessed it, the Old Testament. So what does it mean to claim that the early church didn't have the

Bible, that they unhitched themselves, whatever that means, from the Old Testament? I imagine

Jeff Durbin is going to have some things to say about all this. Let's find out. We can, in fact, make the gospel irresistible again for this next generation.

Yeah, the a little bit of the back story is about nine years ago. I was watching a video.

Sam Harris, who 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 think is a false assumption. And the assumption is, as the

Bible goes, so does Christianity. So if you dismantle the Bible, Christianity goes away. You've undermined Christianity. If you know, if it's a sixty six 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 debates, who's going to 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.

So imagine that. Stanley saw Sam Harris, quote unquote, dismantling the

Bible, and his reaction was to start thinking about unhitching Christianity from the

Old Testament. Like, is is that what happened? Why? Why not do what others have done?

What would I do at this channel and just defend the word of God? I don't.

Durbin's about to jump in here. It's about 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 didn't make any of this up, you know, thirty five, almost forty years ago to say, hey, I would like to read. 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 tether their faith to the event that launched the movement that eventually brought us the Bible. So none of this is new.

It really just is 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 atheists 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 that motivated me.

And so 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. Geisler, 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 going to 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 Why the Bible Tells Me So Isn't Enough Anymore, and then eventually wrote

Irresistible. 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 ask 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 why not teach the word of God to the next generation and show them that it can be defended?

Explain to them why it's true and show them that it's completely relevant to their lives in the 21st century. Why not do that?

Why is that not an option? I I don't understand. Does it does it take more work or something like I?

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, I get that. And obviously a large amount of the book is given over to the whole question of how are we to treat the

Old Testament as regards the New Testament and so on. And ultimately, as I see it, the 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 who I. I just got heartburn.

That that one, that's a quote from Stanley's book. That one gave me indigestion. They're not equally applicable.

The Old Testament is not as applicable as the New Testament. Boy, I. I thought this was going to be a debate teacher reacts, and here

I am, I'm doing a pass react. That that is a garbage take that that's.

That's two week old spicy garbage right there. What did the apostle Paul mean when he said this?

Second Timothy three, verse 16, 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. What was the scripture that the apostle

Paul was referring to when he wrote this letter to Timothy? What was scripture? What was he talking about?

The New Testament only? Well, was that even a canon of text when Paul wrote this letter?

No, he was talking primarily about the Old Testament. I mean, this is.

To me, this is like elementary stuff, ladies and gentlemen. I mean, like, I don't know. It it shouldn't be this easy to miss stuff like this.

If you know your Bible, if you're a good student of the scripture and hey, especially if you teach the

Bible to a church, these kinds of things should pop up immediately. Like why?

Why didn't these things pop up for Stanley? Like what's what's going on here?

Certainly one of the differences, and I'm glad you brought this up because all the book reviews make it sound like the whole book's 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 Testament is at the beginning of our book. How do you know about sin without Genesis?

You know, or or or maybe Isaiah or something, right? How do you know about God and his promises of redemption without the

Old Testament? How do you even understand the vast majority of Jesus teaching in the gospel since they consist of either allusions to the

Old Testament or outright quotations from the Old Testament? I oh, boy, shut up,

Nate. All right. Let's let's let's get into Durbin's response here. I think it's important. Andy said that it's not a difference in theology, a difference in approach in terms of approaching the law of God 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 and to 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 we're 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 itself. 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 in some of his work in 2 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 and the surety of his testimony, not on the fact that they were eyewitnesses.

He, of course, mentions that we were eyewitnesses to him. So for reference, this is what Durbin is citing, 2

Peter 1, verse 16. For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our

Lord Jesus Christ. But we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the

Father and the voice was born to him by the majestic glory. This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.

We ourselves heard this very voice born from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic, here it is.

And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

A lot of Jewish imagery, probably some idioms there.

And then he goes on to talk about how prophecy is produced. But that, for reference, is what

Durbin is talking about. But he has something more sure, the prophetic word. And I think this is interesting, too.

And I would just say this with and I love and respect Andy a tremendous amount. But I think it's providential, brothers, that 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 actually had in my program, Ben Shapiro, and he was talking about the resurrection.

Now, there's anybody can go see this online. I'd encourage you to do so. When Dr. Craig points to the historical evidences and the logical consistency of the resurrection of Jesus Christ at the very end of this strand of amazing evidences and logical argumentation,

Ben Shapiro's answer is, I find that uninteresting. And it's right. Right. Do you remember this?

I did. I think I did a video on that, too. You watch something like that, what

Durbin is describing, and you think to yourself, man, what went wrong? Right. You've got one of the foremost

Christian intellects alive appealing to Ben Shapiro. Why didn't Shapiro budge on his beliefs?

I actually gave my own explanation in the reaction that I did. But it seems like Durbin is suggesting that it's because Dr.

Craig did not rely on the authority of the word of God more. 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 one, 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 unrighteousness for that which is known about God is evident within them.

And here's what it says. For God has made it evident to them. So the problem is a sinful suppression of the truth, not that we're neutral towards God, that we just don't have enough evidence or lighter 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.

It's to say that that's not really the problem. The problem is, is that we won't take God at his self -attesting 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. I don't know if the

Apostle Paul would have applied Romans chapter one to somebody like Ben Shapiro.

Romans chapter one has at its focal point the Gentiles, the the pagans who did not honor

God. These were not Jews who refused their Messiah. This was a different group in the eyes of the

Apostle Paul. Romans chapter two, arguably, is probably more applicable to someone like Shapiro.

Maybe you disagree with that. I just don't think that Romans chapter one, when you pay attention to the characterization in the like the latter half of that chapter is thinking about Jews.

I think to me, I think that's pretty clear 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 does he chastise them for? He chastises them for not believing all of the prophets and Moses had spoken concerning him.

OK, so I know I just took issue with something Durbin said, but what he's doing right now is he's coming back with some

New Testament examples of how Jesus and the disciples relied on the Old Testament. And he's right.

I got to tell you, like, it's not going to be very hard to refute Stanley's position here.

The examples are all over the place. So good, good for Durbin. 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, insufficiency 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 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 one sixteen. 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? Well, hold on.

So so so let's not go too fast over that, because Durbin is making a really great point. OK. If we quote the scripture, let me back up.

When we engage the next generation, then that's what Stanley was concerned about, right?

That's kind of the initial premise that led him to think about his whole sermon about unhitching

Christianity from the Old Testament in the first place. When we engage the next generation and we read the scripture, when we give him the gospel, what do we have to fear?

It isn't the Holy Spirit, the one who's doing the lion's share of the work anyway. Ezekiel chapter thirty six, verse twenty six.

Look at this. And I will give you a new heart. This is the Lord speaking and a new spirit I will put within you and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

And I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Oops. Wait a minute. I can't use that passage if I'm supposed to unhitch

Christianity from it. Right. But but but that's what happens when God moves.

And when someone hears the gospel, the Lord removes their heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh.

And they hear and they respond to the gospel by following after Jesus and obeying his commands.

Amen. So we don't have anything to fear from quoting the

Old Testament. The Lord knows his people. He knows who is his. Jesus said the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.

All we have to do is just go and reap. Amen. Eve, 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 we're we're losing the strength of the biblical worldview and 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 to 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 morality, ethical appeals or to an appeal to any evidence at all.

Well, so Durbin is cooking. OK, and well, so so I'll go ahead and sidestep the whole presuppositionalist thing.

I don't I don't fully agree with it. And I and I personally,

I utilize whatever apologetics tools I believe are appropriate to have meaningful conversations with nonbelievers.

That's that's a rabbit trail. But Durbin is cooking. And because Stanley is just already on weak footing, there wasn't much that Durbin had to do to overcome

Stanley's claims. And I think he did. Now, arguably, there's a quicker, faster way to get there.

OK, so when Stanley makes the claim and the first thing that he does is he does not define what Unhitch means, that's probably the first question that should be asked is, well, hold on a second.

I didn't really hear a definition. Could you actually spell one out for me clearly so that I and the audience can understand it and then force

Stanley to justify himself somewhere in the New Testament where this is taught, this this idea that we should unhitch ourselves from the

Old Testament. OK, and but, you know, again, that would be something that belonged more in a formal cross -examination than I suppose this kind of loose, you know, unbelievable is is not a formal debate by any stretch.

It's a great it's a great show. It's a great platform for, you know, engaging different kinds of ideas.

But it's not a formal debate. And so, you know, anyway, there are way too many biblical examples, whether it's the ones that I already brought up already or Durbin's examples that do serious damage to undermine

Stanley's claims. And so that's kind of where I think the discussion could be that could draw out a better clash, just put it that way.

Because, again, I mean, to be technical, we just never heard a definition of unhitch. So anyway, there is a few minutes of back and forth that resembles cross.

Stanley jumps in and ask Durbin some questions. So let's go there right now. Boy, thank you so much for watching this video.

Did you know that the majority of people who do watch are not subscribed to the channel? If this video is blessing you, would you do me a favor and like and subscribe to the channel?

It just really helps me to get the word out about this ministry. I greatly appreciate it. I think, Jeff, I think you just went in a circle.

So let me ask you a couple of questions. I mean, what? So here's my opinion.

If Christ has not been raised, you're preaching and your faith is useless, right? Yes, it's not original with me, you know that.

And also, you don't believe. Oh, I should say that. Do you believe Peter and John believe

Jesus was the Messiah between the crucifixion and the resurrection, or did something happen to their faith after the resurrection?

I mean, and it's people always go to the Luke six. Is it Luke 16? Yeah, Luke 16 passage or Luke 16, which is so silly to me.

OK, because Jesus is in a parable. He's talking in a parable. OK, so we started off with some interesting garden path questions, right?

So setting the garden path just means developing a line of questions that begin more benign at the beginning, but then, you know, they lead to a doozy of a question or they should at the end.

Right. And it's a setup. OK. And so Stanley asks, well, do you agree with Scripture that if Christ is not raised and we are all to be pitied, essentially,

Durbin says yes. Well, then Stanley asks another question, but then he interrupts his own question to provide some commentary.

I don't know. That he really should not be doing the work of his interlocutor for his interlocutor in that sense.

Right. A lot of times, if you if you do this kind of a thing, like if you pause and then you try to like provide some commentary, you divert like this.

Essentially, you end up losing the original thread. So Stanley should be very careful about when to insert his own commentary and when to just simply ask the question.

Technically, in formal debates anyway, you would never provide commentary at all in cross -examination.

The commentary is for the other segments of debate, if at all. OK. But this isn't a formal debate.

Like I said, this is this is unbelievable. Let me read the verse right. 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 reference you just gave us was within the context of a parable about Abraham's bosom and all that.

The law and the prophets were proclaimed until John, John the Baptist. Since that time, the good news contrast.

Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached and everyone is forcing their way into it. So by the way, that phrase, look at this.

Luke 1616, the law and the prophets were until John. Since then, the good news of the kingdom is preached and everyone forces his way into it.

That has been in a bit of an interpretive mystery for many a Bible scholar. Why? Well, it's just the awkward way that the phrase reads.

Jesus also said the same thing in Matthew 11, verse 12. The kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and the violent take it by force.

OK, and we know this phrase is important because in Matthew that right there is the center of a chiasm.

But what is it saying? I agree with D .A. Carson, who says that the way that the Greek reads, it's not that the kingdom suffers violence.

It is the kingdom itself that is advancing with great force. And so Carson offers a different way to read it.

So it's like from the time of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully moving, forcefully advancing and violent or or rapacious men have been trying to plunder it.

So anyway, just just a little note for you all. I mean, I get the parable thing. We can talk about that. And you and I both spend our days exegeting scripture.

But more to the point is the apostle Paul saying, OK, if there's no resurrection, Christ isn't raised. If Christ isn't raised, game over.

He doesn't say. But we have the law and the prophets and we still have the Apocalypse of John, which have been written yet. Of course, we still have it. In other words, the whole thing is the resurrection.

And to your point about William Lane Craig's conversation, 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. So what Stanley is trying to do is he's trying to find points of agreement right now with Durbin.

OK, he watched a video of Durbin engaging a lost person in Arizona. And Stanley says Durbin met this guy where he was, like where he was at and gave him the gospel accordingly.

In other words, he didn't quote scripture. Durbin didn't quote scripture, and he didn't use the

Bible as a source of authority in that moment. According to Stanley, he appealed to the laws of logic and into, you know, some kind of grounding for that.

Stanley is appealing to that in order to undermine Durbin's response to him and to show that Durbin's essentially doing what

Stanley is advocating for. High school and 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 or some of the what may be considered odd stories in the Bible, I said, don't get in a big spitting 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, 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, of course, confirmed what

Jesus taught and it confirmed what Jesus taught about the law and the prophets. So, again, it's sequential is the difference. And anyway, so I mean, that's certainly something somebody could say, you know.

I wonder how Durbin's going to respond. My question to 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 mouth. They're not repeating the story of a 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 no, no, this is demonstrably false.

He just said that the sermons and acts were all about the resurrection. OK, Acts chapter two,

Day of Pentecost. The wind blows in fire on top of heads, right? Peter gets up because everybody thinks people are drunk.

And this is what he says. This is what was uttered through the prophet Joel. Through what? The Old Testament, guys.

He quotes a prophecy, an eschatological prophecy in order to show that this is being fulfilled in their day.

In other words, the way that these folks attention were grabbed in the first place was because of a mysterious event that could only be explained through the

Old Testament. And it relied on folks knowing the Old Testament, knowing their

Tanakh in order to understand the event of Pentecost. And even then, for those who like really knew their

Bible, like really studied it, did their due diligence and studied Tanakh, they would have looked at this event and recognized it as God reversing the confusing of languages at the

Tower of Babel. That's what Pentecost is. And where do we learn all about that? Yep, it's the

Old Testament, guys. Sorry, I'm getting a little animated.

Are you seeing how Stanley? He's just so obviously not representing the

New Testament very well. For someone, again, who is a teacher of the word, they they got to be held to a higher standard.

And it boggles my mind how someone like Stanley cannot know these things. Here's one more example real quick.

Look at this Acts chapter seven. You know, Stephen is brought before the council. You remember this in the high priest and he's about to be killed.

So what does he do? He preaches. Guess what he talks about the Old Testament. Verse two, the

God of glory appeared to our father Abraham. He goes on a very long monologue talking about Abraham all the way down to Solomon.

Stanley is just I don't know, he's way off. Those early sermons were all about the resurrection because something extraordinary had happened.

So anyway, and you know all that. I'm not this isn't new information. This is just what we emphasize and how we sequence it.

Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. 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 going to 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, a 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 his people a principle that you test all things, even miracles by the foundation of God's own previous revelation of himself.

Come on. I know the point that Durbin wants to make, but I'm hesitating because I'm wondering if there was just an easier, more effective way to undermine

Stanley's claims, which is to just go to the New Testament, where clearly the Old Testament is key to Jesus and to his disciples.

And if it's important to them, it should be important to us that we understand the Old Testament so that we can understand

Jesus and the disciples on a deeper level. That's my critique of many in church today.

We just don't appreciate who really wrote the

New Testament. We don't appreciate the Jewishness of the

New Testament. The Old Testament flavor that the New Testament has. If we did, if we took the requisite time to understand these things, the

Bible would stop being this. It's almost like a blank coloring book with with just the black and white images there, and it would start getting filled in with such rich, vibrant imagery and colors.

And the gospels look, I mean, you know, this this is history. 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 we're chastised for that. Don't forget that we're missing that. That's important. I don't think we should smooch over that.

They were glad Jesus on the road to Emmaus with their confusion saying, oh, we thought he was the Messiah. We thought he was going 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 that's a great point. Look at this. Luke chapter 24, verse 25.

And he said to them, oh, foolish ones and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary that the

Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory and beginning with Moses and all the prophets he interpreted to them in all the scriptures and things concerning himself?

The New Testament never, ever one time suggests that Christians should not know

God's word, whether they're early Christians or current Christians. Like I said, the scripture is

God breathed and profitable so that the person of God can be equipped for every good work. I think that scripture should come up in this discussion.

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 anyway, and just just back to the to the signs and wonders. What is the point that Stanley is making? Isn't the point that Christians should unhitch from the

Old Testament? Whatever that means. So so why didn't Jesus teach that? Why didn't the disciples?

Why did Jesus call these folks, these people on the road to Emmaus foolish ones for not believing what the

Old Testament said? This is going really badly for Stanley, but it would for anybody who wanted to make the kind of claim that he's making.

When you say if someone rises from the dead, I'm going with them and you know, as well as I know, I'm tying this specifically to the resurrection of Jesus.

No, I know. And I think 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. OK, I mean, in that sense,

Zing, you can tell with Durbin's facial expression right there that he's pleased with himself for saying that.

Let me ask you this question. Would there be a Bible if there had been no resurrection? Can you explain that a little more?

Would there be a Bible if there had been no resurrection? Would we have the Bible, but not the old law and prophets? But I mean, this extraordinary piece of literature we call the

Bible, it's the Jewish, the Hebrew Bible or Jewish scriptures, whatever you call it, and the New Testament documents. Would that even exist for us if there had been no resurrection?

That's a weird question to ask, but I think the answer is no.

We would not have had the New Testament, but we still would have had the old. We still would have had the

Tanakh. Now, the question is, how does this question that Stanley just asked, have anything to do with unhitching ourselves from the

Old Testament? Let's find out. Well, I would say it'd be impossible for there to have not been a resurrection.

The first century church, the first century church had a Bible. One of the things that you talk about, which

I think. Would 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

Greek Septuagint, which the early Christians had. But just 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 long 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 we'd be we'd be to be pitied.

There'd be no faith, of course. But there would be no Bible. Well, there would be there would be nothing to in terms of believing in this man who said he was the

Messiah. There would be. I know. There would be no Bible, correct? Well, the Old Testament. So the answer to the question is, yes, the

Bible that we currently have would probably not exist. So therefore, what follows from this?

We should unhitch ourselves from the Old Testament. How does one lead to the other? Much of the conversation, you know, coming from Stanley's side, trades on unclear assumptions, unarticulated arguments that need to be spelled out clearly for all to hear.

And it just hasn't been done. It said that the Messiah was going to rise again from the dead. Right. Sort of. Nobody expected a resurrection.

But if there had been no resurrection, there would be no the B .I .B .L .E. And you and I would know virtually nothing about the

Law and the Prophets because we learned everything we learned about along the prophets in church. And it would have been, you know, relegated to the

Anuma Elish or some other Babylonian myth. And so we just studied it 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 the Old Testament. No, no, it's not.

No. It's this one unified revelation. I think that's actually 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 the sovereign. I agree, because Jesus rose from the dead and his story worth telling because it was prophesied that he would done so.

Gentiles began to take the Hebrew scripture seriously because they took a Hebrew script seriously. Jesus, again.

So I think Durbin's right. This sounds like a non sequitur. The idea that if Jesus had not resurrected.

Which, wow, like what a hypothetical to deposit, right? That that we wouldn't have the

Bible in its iteration today does not seem connected to Stanley's earlier claim about unhitching.

So so that's and that's what Durbin means. That's what I was saying a moment ago. And I think that's right.

It would be nice if Durbin forced Stanley to explain how these things are connected.

It seems like Stanley is the one who is asking a lot of the questions here. And Durbin is perennially in the hot seat.

Sequential. Can I before you come back, Jeff, before you before you come back, Jeff, I just wanted to kind of get Andy to tease out a bit for those who maybe aren't completely following.

But I mean, this is kind of, I think, summed up in one bit of your book where you talk about the idea of Jesus first,

Bible second, Andy. Yeah. And for you, you kind of make the point 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 so for them, obviously, it was 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 that, completely misses Jesus teaching in the gospel narratives.

If that's what Stanley's position is, and because Briarley is the one characterizing it right now, but I think he's right.

What does he make of the gospel that Jesus was preaching before he died? Because it wasn't about the resurrection, you know, the crowds did not hear

Jesus teach about his own death and resurrection, except for the time that he proposed that concept as a response to the challenges coming from the religious leaders.

No, what the crowd heard from Jesus consistently was that the kingdom of heaven was at hand.

Where do you think these people would have gotten the idea of the kingdom of heaven from? The Old Testament.

This is absolutely stunning. I, and what this does is it sets up believers in Jesus for further biblical illiteracy.

This is already a problem across all denominations and flavor of Christian, whether you're Protestant, Catholic, you name it.

Biblical illiteracy is a problem. And Stanley apparently is furthering the idea that the early church in Acts only had the things that were happening to them in the name of Jesus's resurrection.

They didn't have a Bible guys. They didn't know anything about the Torah or the Tanakh. The moment that they started following Jesus, all of a sudden their knowledge and Torah observance that just completely disappeared.

This is really bad. Paul, you know, first Timothy, all scriptures, God breathed and so on.

You think we have to understand that he's referring to the Jewish scriptures and we're not expecting everyone to kind of take this on wholesale in order to be able to join this story.

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 claims.

Well, we know that there was no the Bible, the way we think of the Bible in terms of all of the scripture mapped and wrapped and collected and protected.

I mean, the history of how we got our Bible is extraordinary. There's no way to explain it other than supernatural intervention from my perspective.

But for, you know, the first 380 years or so, the church, in fact, the church accomplished more before there was the

Bible than the next 300 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 would be no, in other words, when

Luke at the beginning of his gospel says, this is amazing, many think about this. So again, do you see how two statements that Stanley puts together one right after another are not at all connected, but he speaks as if they are, he just assumes that they are.

Watch this again, because he's been saying this a few times now. You know, the first 380 years or so, the church, in fact, the church accomplished more before there was the

Bible than the next 300 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 would be no, in other words, when

Luke. So I'm not discounting the Bible. Yes, you are. But I'm saying the foundation of our faith is an event.

The event of the resurrection. That's actually true. Now, how does this do any work to support the claim that we should unhitch ourselves from the

Old Testament? Do you see how these two statements belong in two different categories of argument altogether?

One does not lead to the other. Do you see that? It's like me saying the foundation of my wedding are the vows that I took with my wife on our wedding day.

Amen. Okay. Right. So therefore we should burn all of the photos of our dating. Like what?

Like what does one have to do with the other? Miraculously enough, we have four accounts of the life of a, you know, a

Nazarene rabbi. I mean, the whole thing is extraordinary. And something new began because of the event of the resurrection that gave, where we all agree, extraordinarily new context and, 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, we get it all at one time. I'm not discounting the inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration, or importance about, again, the person who taught me this wrote and edited a book, inerrancy.

So there's no space. It's just a matter of what do 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 barrel 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 when it comes to that, in that sense, you feel that too often the church is trying to do too much work when they approach the skeptic and the non -believer by kind of having to try and defend vast reams of scripture.

Right, right. And that's the point is we, the pressure is not on us to defend everything in the

Bible. In terms of, again, 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'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 Calvinist or covenant or dispensational. I don't really care. I just want people to embrace the fact that Jesus, Paul said it.

He died on the cross for our sin. He was buried. He, 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 where we all agree is how do we get people to engage in that conversation and arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is who the -

I can see how this mentality leads to Christians getting saved and treating it like spiritual fire insurance.

They think of the gospel as what is necessary to die and go to heaven someday.

But now they have very little idea of what they are supposed to do with the rest of their lives until death.

Ephesians 2, verse 10 says, for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which

God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. What are those good works?

You know what good works are in the Hebrew? You know what they're called? Mitzvot. You know who had a lot to say about this?

Jesus in the gospels, in his sermon on the mount, in his teachings to his disciples that, by the way, traded on their knowledge and understanding of the

Old Testament. Come on, come on, Jeff. Let's see what

Durbin has to say about all this. The apostle Paul believed Jesus was - I think it's important, if I could just bring in here, Justin, that in 1

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 with the resurrection of Jesus Christ is based in the Old Testament prophecies. He mentions -

No, it's not. No, it's not. It's based on an event in his life.

Let's allow Jeff to finish his thought there, Andy, and then I'll bring you back in. Yeah, go ahead. 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,

Andy. I know that you will, but you're creating a disjunction at this point, and you're saying it's just the event in history. You just need to know about this event in history.

The apostle Paul, in fact, does in 1 Corinthians 15. Yes, he does. Quote scripture, Psalm 110 .1. He must reign until he's 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's in tandem. My point here is that you have to see the resurrection the way that the early

Christians did, and that is that it has meaning because it is connected to the promises of God in the biblical worldview.

It's not just in 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 would add to that, that you as a follower of Jesus Christ, whether you are the first century follower of Jesus Christ or a follower of Jesus Christ today, you would do well to understand the

Old Testament. Do the hard work of reading and understanding the Old Testament and seeing how the things that Jesus said and did and the things that the disciples are saying in the epistles and in other places in the

New Testament, how they are connected to the Old Testament, because what the Old Testament is gonna do is it's going to unfold or deepen your understanding of what they're saying and what they're doing.

To even look at the Last Supper and miss the whole connection to Passover is,

I mean, my goodness, what are you... That's the whole point. Like, you're supposed to spend the rest of your life wrestling with God's word.

And how are you supposed to do that without the Old Testament? That's...

But again, I mean, who knows? Like, so on the one hand, could just be talking about an apologetic style, right?

But that's just not... The way that that phrase is worded, it makes it seem like there is permanence here, that there is something that just reverberates and applies to all

Christians beyond just simply doing some form of apologetic to a non -believer.

And that's what I mean. That's why it's important that he defined the term and he never did. Didn't get a chance 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...

Making legs grow? Who could he be referring to?

I think I know. 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 history to have raised people from the dead.

Just because there's a sign and wonder, it 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 back on this Sunday and then we'll go to a quick break again. But Jeff, I mean, it's... Come on,

Jeff. All right, look. If you haven't seen this exchange, I encourage you to watch the whole thing. The link for that is below.

But here's the deal. It's hard for me with videos like this to declare a winner because of the nature of this kind of back and forth.

There is not even an attempt at presenting a category of cross -examination in this show.

You know, unbelievable. It's just meant to be more free -flowing and loose. And definitely there are benefits to that.

The issue is Stanley did most of the questioning, right? It was

Durbin that was in the hot seat most of the time during that portion of the show. So it's hard for me to adjudicate.

However, because Stanley's position is just so bizarre, like right out of the gate, it's just weird.

All Durbin had to do was point out moments in the New Testament where the Old Testament is important to the gospel authors.

It's connected. It's key in some sense to the author of the epistles and to Jesus himself and to the early church.

It's all there, guys. Like it's really not hard to find it once you just open the text and start reading.

And Durbin did do that. You know, I wish there were some more pointed questions that Durbin could have asked

Stanley in this type of exchange. But I think Durbin bested Stanley here.

I mean, at this point, I think if Stanley was the only one on the show making these arguments, he still would have lost the debate.

It's just, it's so bad. Okay. All right. That's enough out of me. What about you? Now it's your turn. Who won this debate?

Ann Lee Stanley or Jeff Durbin? Let me know in the comments below. Also, do you think that we should unhitch ourselves from the

Old Testament? I mean, like, boy, if you do, please explain like what is going on with that.

As always, if you made it this far, you got to join the Patreon community. What are you waiting for? Jump into the discussions that we're having over there right now.

There's all kinds of cool features. We're doing Zoom hangouts. You can meet up with me one -on -one and chat about whatever you want.

The link for all of that in the Patreon is below. I'm going to return soon with more videos, but in the meantime, I'll say bye for now.