Anyone who reads here would know I don’t endorse or associate with someone such as Jeff Durbin, pastor and found of Apologia Church in Arizona, the Phoenix area.  James White has joined him as pastor there.  I would characterize Durbin as one of the new Calvinists, new not chronological as much as it is a different kind of Calvinism, which relates mainly to the practice or application of scripture.

Andy Stanley is one of the most influential church leaders in the world, even as his church in Georgia is the largest in the United States.  His dad is the very well known, Charles Stanley, long time also pastor of a Southern Baptist church in Georgia.  In the last year Stanley wrote a book, Irresistible, that caused a furor within evangelicalism, because of some of the major teachings of the book.  I’m not going to go into the problem here.  I’ve just read reviews.  I’ve never read the book itself, and that’s not point for this post.  My point with this paragraph was to introduce a debate between Stanley and Durbin.

There is a radio station in the UK, called Premier Christian Radio, and a program on that station in the UK called, Unbelievable.  Unbelievable is hosted by Justin Brierley, and he moderated the debate between Stanley and Durbin.  The premise of the debate on May 31, 2019 was something that Stanley had said in a sermon and then in his book, which is the title of the podcast:  Unhitching Christianity from the Old Testament?  At the time of this writing (Thursday), it had been viewed 47,128 times.  Watching the debate could be very helpful, but I want to add another disclaimer.

What Stanley asserts is wrong.  As you watch the debate, you can see Durbin undo Stanley and put to rest his position.  Stanley hardly debates.  This is a somewhat complicated issue, partly because of the false teaching that is out there.  I would not fellowship with Durbin and he uses a modern version to argue.  However, I agree with everything that Durbin says.  As far as a doctrinal position, I didn’t hear anything from Durbin that I thought was wrong, and Stanley is very, very wrong, and it would take awhile to break down all the damage that believing Stanley would do.  Durbin, however, eviscerates Stanley, using scripture to do it.  It is a helpful subject to understand, first, to understand a biblical position on apologetics, what is referred to as presuppositionalism, which was defended, and, second, to elaborate on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

I don’t know Durbin enough to explain how he goes off the rails with the practice of scripture.  I’m guessing, he fails at biblical application, and isn’t consistent on how his own doctrine should affect how his church grows.  He and his church are worldly.  I hadn’t heard of Durbin until I saw him with James White in the last year.  This debate showed up when I clicked on my youtube app, because it knows what kind of thing I might want to watch.  Durbin is not consistent in this application and practice of scripture, even according to what he espouses in this debate, but what he says is good, right on, and confronts Stanley very well.

Stanley and Durbin don’t discuss their view of grace, but antinomianism proceeds from Stanley’s view.  The detachment from the law leads to cheap grace, the so-called “scandalous” grace that I’ve written on a few times in recent months.  The grace of God serves like a garbage can to sin.  This itself is not saving grace.

One more thing.  What Durbin says about scripture contradicts the Durbin and White position on the preservation of scripture, and, therefore, their apologetics with Moslems, something I wrote about here in the last month in a posting of an interview of Pooyan Mehrshahi.  Presuppositional apologetics starts with what scripture says about itself to come to a conclusion on the text of scripture, what and how it was preserved.  Durbin and White, against their own defended apologetic, do not start with the authority of scripture about itself.  Like Stanley says that events are a basis of faith, Durbin and White say the same in their defense of a critical text.