I watched for some awful reason the Soteriology101 podcast and figure I could add a few words. I’m not going to comment on what has already been addressed but to certain comments that weren’t addressed. Flowers starts the podcast by doing damage control to explain why he is talking to Andy Stanley. Of course, he has to mention the fact that Andy Stanley is stuffing cash into his pockets.

Leighton goes on to call the opponents of Andy Stanley the “theology police” and by implication states that those that are critical of Andy are not practicing the principle of charity. The opponents of Stanley need to “unhitch” themselves of their petty jealousy for a man that is doing more for the Lord than most of us. Leighton, of course, said all those things without giving any comment to what his positions are because he wants to remain untouched in the debate. Leighton has a lot of friends on the “Mere Christianity” side so I see why his silence exists. But I suppose that this silence shouldn’t be unexpected because Leighton is silent on all matters of theology that has nothing to do with Calvinism. Leighton calls Stanley’s opponents children and such. Has Leighton read anything by Andy Stanley? Has he read any of his critics? Unlike Leighton, real scholars and serious Christians have responded to Stanley about his statements and positions:

1. “Unhitching from the Old Testament”

The Old Covenant Is Over. The Old Testament Is Authoritative.

Why We Can’t Unhitch from the Old Testament

Christianity unhitched

2. Assisting the homosexual movement

Stanley interview

Andy Stanley’s spinning moral compass

3. Attack on inerrancy

Jesus loves me, this I know,

Andy Stanley, Apologetics and Inerrancy

Inerrancy and general historical reliability

Is Christianity a bookish faith?

Is inerrancy dispensable?

The Big Bad Wolf

Leighton Flowers compares his interview to that of the interview of JMac by Shapiro. The difference is that the JMac didn’t call everyone that disagrees with Shapiro on Judaism childish and other such claims. Leighton also appeals to Dr. Michael Brown giving an interview to Andy Stanley. The difference between Leighton and Brown is that Brown had him on to clarify his position. I think Brown was wrong in accepting Stanley clarification when he clearly is incorrect and Brown threw him softball questions. Brown constantly associates with heretics and deserves the criticism. So, Leighton appeals fail to exonerate his interview. Furthermore, I don’t think Brown said all the negative statements about Stanley’s critics as Leighton has. Leighton painted his own target by claiming that Stanley’s critics lack “charity” and so forth. 

Theological Recommendations:

The Dark Knight