| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3296
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:29 pm: |     |
Jackob, I'm not sure I understand your question, either. I'll just comment on my reaction to the statement about political systems opposing Catholicism and thus causing the Reformation to be effective.
The Reformation was effective not because of the German pollitical system opposing the church. It was effective because it was TRUTH. Martin Luther "discovered" Scriptureóin particular the epistlesóand the truth about grace and the new covenant were uncovered. The Reformation was a spiritual victory, not a political one. Oh, I'm sure there were political resultsóthe church had historically wielded a lot of political power.
What many people fail to graspóand, I suspect, many Adventists fall into this categoryóis that there is absolute truth, and it is not abstract; it is imbodied in the Person of Jesus and the eternal purposes of God. Churches that are not founded on this truth have nothing on which to rely expect human systems and logic.
The phenomenon I've observed in California partially illustrates what I mean: the pastoral staffs of large SDA churches visit the growing, Bible-teaching evangelical churches near them in order to discover what types of "programs" are making those churches successful. Then they return to their churches and attempt to implement the "programs" they observed. The problem is, they can do things like vibrant Christian churches do, but unless those worshiping are truly born again and filled with the Holy Spirit, those programs will not be successful and powerful as they are in churches where Jesus is lifted up and His word in honored and taught.
The Adventists I have observed attribute the success or failure of "church" to the administration of its programs including the type of music used, even the type of preaching. The missing link, though, is submission to Scriptural truth. Unless a church and its pastoral staff are committed to teaching and living Scriptural truth, the church cannot be truly healthy.
I don't know for sure whether or not I've addressed your question, Jackob--just my observations.
Colleen |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 80
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:12 am: | |
Sorry Java, my mystake, I was not clear.
Through system my friend means organized religion, organized politics and so on. When i objected to the pretens of sda church to be the only true christian religion, he said that all denominations pretend this. When I said that free study from the Bible in the church is not permitted, he said that there is no church to permit this. He said that all systems, all organized religions crush dissent through administrative measurements.
What is very frustrating is the fact that he cannot see the difference between a cult and a church, between a church which in everything, no matter how small, crush dissent, and a church which even it cling to the central truths of the gospel, permits questions and different opinions on minor matters.
Almost in everything he follows the same logic. He saw many bad things, but said tat it is necessary to appear a genius mind to harmonize the prophetic predictions, Sabbath, investigative judgment with the gospel. Somehow he believes that these elements can fit the gospel matrix, and are compatible, but we don't see now their compatibility. It's very frustrating because his position is illogical and cannot be disproved.
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:13 am: | |
Javagirl,
Thanks for sharing that info about your husband and his thoughts about the feminization of Christianity. This is a real problem. There is a radio program called the White Horse Inn which can be listened to online, and probably able to be downloaded www.whitehorseinn.org where on Sunday Jan. 15 the panelists interviewed the author David Murrow of the book "Why Men Don't go to Church". It was a fascinating interview.
So often as you say Jesus is presented as some kind of wimp. Hymns and praise songs have language in them that would sound more like sentimental love songs rather than true worship of the Creator and Redeemer. While surrender and relationship can be inferred from scripture, the words are not really there and sound like feminine terminology which turns men off to religion. I remember singing an otherwise good praise song recently but I sort of cringed when one phrase called Jesus the "darling of heaven". Now where is that sort of talk found in the Bible?
Statistics show that the church on Sunday is made up of 61% women. Other than the pastoral office, women control so much of what goes on in church. In this interview with David Murrow, he talked about how the decor has been changed in the church to give it a feminine rather than a masculine appeal. I suppose that the reason I personally like the preaching of John MacArthur so much is that he is truly masculine in the way he preaches Christianity. It is all Biblical, and none of the syrupy, wimpy terminology that pervades so much of Christianity. In fact, Java, I would suggest introducing your husband to the radio program of John MacArthur and see what he thinks. The web site is www.gty.org and you can find the radio station in the Atlanta area where you live that carries his program.
Stan |
Javagirl
Registered user
Username: Javagirl
Post Number: 140
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 6:53 am: | |
Jakob,
Actually it takes more than a genious mind. It takes the Holy Spirit! With the Holy Spirit, even a child is enlightened to truth. Even a mentally disabled person can be given the essence of God and truth.
Intellectual debates and Intellectual understanding cannot impart the "Knowledge" of God. Only the indwelling Holy Spirit can bring about true spiritual enlightenment.
I love a good debate, I recommend indepth study of scripture and doctrine. But without the Holy Sprit, it is futile. The scribes, the teachers of the law, did not get it. Jesus makes this point when he talks to Nicodemus. We must be born again.
Is you friend willing to ask God to reveal truth to him? That is the missing link in so many cases. |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 81
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:03 pm: | |
Actually today I have a surprise! A big surprise who lasted one minut, after this interval dissapeared. My friend called me on telephone and announced me that after a sleepless night he came to a conclusion: sda church is not a protestant church, because the gospel is different (includes works).
After this admission I thought that the Holy Spirit opened his mind to truth in His sovereign grace. But, to my dissapointment, my friend said that there is not a single correct interpretation of the gospel! The sda church is right as well as the gospel of grace without works! He said that there is a great mistake to not understand the Bible after the modern discoveries in science, as the theory of relativity of Einstein.
Praying for him is the best thing I can do. After all I learned a lesson: he is not a born again person, he is still dead in sin like we were sometime. He was a man who read much, read Luther, Calvin, Bunyan, and like them a lot. He wanted to introduce the gospel elements in adventism. But I was mistaken. He was not a believer of the gospel. |
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne
Post Number: 243
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:43 pm: | |
Javagirl - I remember a mentally disabled person being baptized in the first Seventh-day Adventist church I attended. The pastor looked over and winked at me and said, "well, were doing it for his family". Reminds me a little of purgatory (having grown up in a Catholic family). Your family can bail you out. Whether you are being bailed out of hell or through the love and good works of your family, you can get to heaven.
I looked in an old book by Maxwell that has a picture of a man being baptized and discusses what it is to be born again. It said when you are born again your "behavior changes" in a place where I believe it should have said your "heart changes."
"Romans 12:21 tells us - Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." And with the Holy Spirit, one can overcome evil. Without the Holy Spirit, a person lacks armor making it difficult and at times impossible. Only Jesus can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.
Lynne
|
Cy
Registered user
Username: Cy
Post Number: 40
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 1:10 pm: | |
Thanks, Stan. I appreciate your explaining what is going on, perhaps centered in California, with "lite" churches :-)
I'm almost never in California over the weekend and I don't watch too much TV (other than PBS Kids :-) so I'm probably a bit out of touch.
Guy |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 391
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 1:19 pm: | |
Jackob,
I'm so sorry that your friend has not understood the joy of true Grace. I have felt that shock myself. It's amazing how the human mind can come up with ways to dodge Reality!
Praying for your friend (and for the people in my life who have not yet thrown themselves at the mercy of God Alone).
Blessings,
Mary
(Message edited by helovesme2 on January 29, 2006) |
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 262
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 2:17 pm: | |
Just thought you might find this quote by Jonathan Edwards interesting, Stan.
http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Doctrine/Unbelievers.htm
"Consider not only how much the angels set by the glory of Christ, but how much God himself sets by it; for he is the darling of heaven, he was eternally Godís delight; and because of his glory God hath thought him worthy to be appointed the heir of all things, and hath seen fit to ordain that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. ó Is he thus worthy of the infinite esteem and love of God himself? And is he worthy of no esteem from you?"
I have been thinking some more about this relationship aspect of Christians to God, and if Christians are commanded to love God, and we know God loves us, how can their not be a relationship? The Bible says the church is the bride of Christ. That is very intimate.
I remember (at BJU) a lot of criticism about the "Jesus is my boyfriend" music, while the hymns they sang were all much better, of course.
A big difference (although not exclusive) between hymns and praise and worship (P&W) is that hymns tend to be about Jesus and P&W tends to be to Jesus. It is a temptation to intellectualize Christianity, to talk about Soteriology, Christology, Escatology without really knowing what they mean. But I do acknowledge you can swing too far in the other direction as well.
But the first stages of boyfriend/girlfriend love is some of the most powerful feelings you can have. You can't stop thinking about that person, you would do anything for that person to make him happy, etc. The problem of course comes in when your boyfriend/girlfriend fails to live up to your expectations. Also, you cannot live at such an emotional intensity
I struggled through C.S. Lewis' "Four Loves" awhile back, and I concluded that the love God has for us epitomizes the friend/friend love, the parent/child love, and the husband/wife love. These distinctions can even be seen in the three parts of the Trinity.
God showed us the greatest love of a friend, and the love of a mother hen gathering her chickens under her wings, and the love of a bridegroom for his bride-to-be.
OK Stan, for the record, the P&W phrase that irritates me: "my lover's breath the sweetest wine." Wine breath is not sweet, and probably half the people singing it at any given time have never smelled it.
With phileo 
Hannah
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1236
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 4:23 pm: | |
You got me Hannah on that Jonathan Edwards quote! (smiley). How did you come up with that quote? You must have a good search engine. BTW, your research and your perspective on these discussions are much appreciated, even though we have probably disagreed on a lot of issues within the seeker movement.
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1237
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 6:43 pm: | |
DR. J.VERNON MCGEE--SUNDAY SERMON 1/29/2006
Listen at www.oneplace.com/ministries/Thru_The_Bible_Sunday_Sermon/ Wow! Talk about a preacher who doesn't feminize Christianity. Even though he went to be with the Lord in 1988, his prophetic voice still speaks. He is prophesying what we are seeing in our day in evangelicalism, and that is further apostasy. In fact he agrees with the SDA church and their doctrine of apostate protestantism, he just doesn't see it in terms of Saturday vs. Sunday. Today his sermon title was "Will there Be a Total Apostasy of the Church"? and he bases his sermon on Rev.3:14-22.
This sermon was probably preached in the early 70's, but his message is ever timely. He says today's church is Laodicean with so much luke-warm Christianity. When Jesus says about the church at Laodicea that "He will spew them out of his mouth", according to McGee, the literal greek means "I will vomit you up"
He goes on to outline many evidences of apostasy in his day, and it sounds so much like today. But the shocking thing that he said is that he believes before Christ comes, there will be a total apostasy of the organized church, and that true believers will likely not be going to any organized churches! Wow--that makes you think.
From listening to McGee over the years I think I know what he would think about the top most influential leaders in US evangelicalism bowing down to Catholicism and touting books by "Oneness Pentecostals" and approving of Modalists like T.D. Jakes, and even inviting them to speak at their large churches (As in Willow Creek inviting Jakes despite advance warnings of his false theology). And what about the liberalization of divorce and remarriage, and the total lack of discipline, where one famous seeker church is reportedly running a very open singles ministry. The Word of God is being replaced with self-help sermons.
Adventism especially is very apostate. In Loma Linda, Sabbath School teachers push every kind of heresy. Look at the recent Spectrum thread on gay marriage--and they have always had the most liberal abortion policies.
I do believe though that there are still many good churches that are faithful to the Word of God, and do practice church discipline. So, I don't believe we've reached the time yet to abandon the churches as McGee spoke about as a possibility, but we should ever keep watch.
It is amazing to me how many things Adventism was half-right about. There is the subtle mixing of truth and error. SDA is absolutely right about Roman Catholicism being apostate, but they can't see their own apostasy. They are right about apostate Protestantism joining forces with Rome, but again it has nothing to do with Sat-Sunday issues, but has everything to do with abandoning the Reformation faith of Jesus, Paul, John, Luther and Calvin. Evangelicals are abandoning the importance of Justification by faith alone, and salvation only by grace.
J. Vernon McGee did have the New Testament gift of prophecy, which has nothing to do with EGW and the Old Testament prophetic office, which she claimed.
Anyway, this sermon today by McGee was a true barnburner, and I am still thankful we can hear this man speak, even though his body is waiting for the final resurrection, but he is with the Lord seeing the ever expanding fruit of his ministry. It is the simple proclamation of the Word of God through verse by verse teaching that God honors in bringing people to faith in Him, and this has been so true in McGee's ministry.
Stan |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3301
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 10:33 pm: | |
Stan, I've often pondered the fact you mention above: Adventism is half-right about so many things. This fact is part of what convinces me there is a real spiritual power (not God) behind it. Satan, of course, knows his own plans, and having been in the presence of God, he knows much about reality that we can't see. He is also thoroughly evil, and the essence of evil is untruthfulness.
I was thinking about J. Vernon McGee's statements about the eventual apostasy of organized religion earlierósomeone else mentioned that sermon todayóand I suspect he is right. Perhaps the highly developed denominations will become corruptómuch like other types of businesses and organizations often become corrupt after decades of developmentóbefore the independent congregations will.
As long as there's a need to protect an organization, though, it seems there's the potential for divided hearts. How does one champion Jesus alone and also protect a denomination?
Interesting thoughts!
Hannah, amazing Edwards quote. Your comments about the characteristics of God's love and Jesus' love for us are insightful. I think the descriptive words we use to describe Jesus tend to reflect our emotions about Him, and those can run the gamut from the most intense personal feelings to incredible awe and humble worship.
Colleen |
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion
Post Number: 264
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 12:45 pm: | |
Stan, I just used Google. I'm not even sure why I looked it up, just kind of a whim. I too feel we have managed to disagree without animosity. I do think it is interesting the person I tend to agree with most often as far as "seeker sensitive" is Melissa - the other person who "married into" the Adventist church. So maybe you do have a point about the dangers of being too accepting of others who claim to be Christians but have many different doctrinal beliefs.
Cautiously,
Hannah |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1252
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 8:33 pm: | |
Hannah and Melissa,
Actually I have appreciated both of your challenges on these issues. You have forced me to think out my positions more carefully. But what is so great about this forum, as opposed to other forums which I have read, is the spirit in which we disagree. If you read the vitriol that is posted on some other so-called Christian forums, and the way people are treated, I think the level of civility is quite good. It doesn't mean we are not passionate about our beliefs or opinions, but for the most part we disagree agreeably.
Appreciatively,
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1311
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 8:49 pm: | |
Well, Hannah and Melissa, I would like your input on the following story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060208/pl_nm/environment_evangelicals_dc
The above story is about a group of evangelicals led by Rick Warren of PDL fame who are now preaching the gospel of global warming. The great concern of evangelicals now is to oppose President Bush in his stubborn refusal to cooperate with all the liberals who want to destroy our industries for the sake of a very questionable concept called global warming. There are very creditable scientists who say there is no such thing as global warming. These trends are just cyclical.
But my point about posting this, is, should global warming be an evangelical concern? It has been well documented how Dr. Warren wants to form a coalition of evangelicals, Catholics, and other questionable groups to solve world AIDS crisis and hunger by way of his Global Peace Plan. He has publically stated that the Reformation of Martin Luther is over, and now we have to concentrate on good works.
This subject came up today on Frank Pastore's show on KKLA also.
Is this what Christ commanded us to do in Matthew 28:19? Is solving global warming the great consuming worry that Christians need to fret about at this time? I would appreciate any comments.
Stan |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 9:28 am: | |
I hadn't read the article, but I did hear the story on ABC news last evening.
Let me ask you a question in return, Stan. Is it wrong for evangelicals to come together to have a public voice on non-religious issues, societal issues? Are we merely to sit back and be subject to the voices of the non-Christians in every issue that does not directly affect our ability to worship or preach the gospel? When one accepts the call to be a pastor, does one give up the right to have interests that may be beyond the scope of the church professionally, but in bounds morally, personally?
As a favorite preacher of mine says "I've gone from preaching to meddling".... so here's my opinion.
The news story reported him as saying that God created the earth, and it's our responsibility to take care of it. I can respect that position to a point, but I personally do not buy into the concept of global warming as a "proven" environmental issue, particularly one man-made. We just don't have enough recorded data given the earth's age to know that these aren't natural cycles or frankly just elements in God's design and plan. So, though I don't disagree with reaching out for a common goal in a secular aspect (such as the AIDS events...that can only benefit people who are suffering...my church offers support groups for ADHD parents...not a Christian issue, but certainly one that benefits from "group-think" and it brings non-Christians to our church), and I don't disagree with Christians having a public voice and position in general...our voice is no less valid than the non-Christian voice... I'm not quite sure global warming is an issue that I would rally around. I hardly think his position is "gospel" in nature. Many, many Christians believe the earth as God's creation should be taken care of. (I washed diapers for 2 kids because I was concerned about the disposables in the landfills...I got over it by my 3rd kid...) I saw nothing in the article you listed or heard nothing in the story on the news that said anything about salvation or anything other than a group of individuals getting together to support a cause they believe in ...and by the way, they're Christians. If a group of muslims got together to support the same cause, would it be a news story? It's hard to trust the integrity of the news for reporting such a story, since it seems they like to negatively spin anything Christian. But being Christian doesn't mean one looses one's individuality or conscience. I feel strongly about abortion, but surely that is not an issue of gospel. So, I don't have a problem with people responding as individuals, even though they are Christians, to issues they feel strongly about. Right or wrong, they believe it is a legitimate issue...and many well educated scientists don't agree. Should we shut them up because we don't agree with the position they take? Surely you have interests in life that would not be considered "religious" in nature.... I know locally we have "known" Christians on the school board and in other aspects of local government.
So, that just brings me back to my question. Is your point, Stan, that Christians should have no public voice or position on anything that is not specific to the gospel? They cannot work with non-Christians for a greater human good, or at least they should not be coordinating events that include non-Christians? There are many reputable people who think global warming is a legitimate issue and as the article states, thinks it will ultimately hurt poor people. Is there an integrity issue you really see in his personal activities? It's not an issue of fellowship in his church, best I can tell, and other than the fact he works for his church, can't tell this initiative is anything other than a personal interest. And if he believes global warming is a legitimate issue based upon what he's looked at, who am I to say he should not speak up about it?
Paul was a tentmaker, and I suspect he had other interests not recorded in scripture. My pastor also coaches little league football. And sometimes he's quite passionate about it. We don't stop being individuals just because we're a pastor or a Christian. Whoever these defined "leaders" are, the only reason the article got published is because it opposes Bush by some "big-name" leaders. My name is not big, but I don't agree with everything Bush has done either, but no one cares what I think so it's not likely to make the news. It's not "unChristian" or contrary to the gospel to have personal interests (to the extent they're not contrary to scripture), even if your interest in them makes the news. If he starts requiring the members of his church to support the initiative, he crosses a line. Until then, I hope he's following his conscience. I hope he has some fun activities in his life too. Even Jesus didn't preach every waking moment of the day.
My opinion....based upon very little specific information. |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 938
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 12:49 pm: | |
I believe we should be involved in our communities, and the biggest community is the world we live in. If we are a recognizable persion I think it would better serve us to get all our fact straight before we shoot of our mouths.
I have a friend who is very active in environmental issues and is constantly pelting me with emails about this or that cause, and she sends me political information about candidates that I don't want to associate with, but I will not restrict her right to state her cause(s). That doesn't mean I have to agree with them either.
A minister can make political statements. Martin Luther King did! And the results, I believe, are that a whole race of people has been brought into a more correct balance with all of the other races surrounding them. However, Dr. King did not have the right to say that the members of his church had to agree with him on his political issues. I don't doubt that most of them did agree, but that is not to say that there couldn't have been dissention in the ranks. We need to remember that there is a division of church and state. We are all members of both, but to use one's membership in one institution to force a change in the other would be wrong. |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1284
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 1:24 pm: | |
You make an interesting point about MLK, Belva. I have wondered if he continued to pastor after he got involved in the civil rights movement, or if that eventually became his job. I certainly believe God used him to bring about incredible positive changes for the nation. I don't always feel as positively about those who try to champion that cause today and wear the name of "reverend".
And you're right about getting the facts straight, but even the most influential people in the world get fed mis-information. I'm thinking specifically of Oprah and that book club issue she recently had. Even with all the people to check into things, she still went on air with mis-information. And in this situation, there is legitimate debate and disagreement in the scientific community. How do you know which information is correct?? But if people say nothing, then it turns out to be a legitimate concern, the lawsuits start flying for not "informing" the public. So now we "know" everything and nothing all at the same time. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 580
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 1:49 pm: | |
Stan,
I agree with Billy Graham on this one. Unlike Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and others, Billy Graham has consistently kept a respectable distance from political and one-issue causes. Dr. Graham has provided spiritual counsel for many United States Presidents--even though he is personally a Democrat (a shocking and uncomfortable revelation for many Evangelicals). Billy Graham is too busy preaching the Gospel to get involved in peripheral issues.
Melissa,
The reason Paul was an acclaimed tentmaker was not only to support himself, but every year the Roman authorities required all citizens to disclose their occupations for taxable purposes. If Paul had disclosed that he was a full-time Christian missionary (an illegal religion until the fourth century), his life and ministry would have been in jeopardy immediately. Given a choice, I think Paul would have preferred to preach the Gospel full-time to the Gentiles without a second lifework involved. Having said that, however, Paul managed to use his tentmaking skills to evangelize his clients.
Dennis Fischer
|
Tisha
Registered user
Username: Tisha
Post Number: 180
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 5:02 pm: | |
Melissa, your thoughts are similar to mine, but you are able to write them out in such a straightforward way, whereas I just think it all but get all jumbled up when trying to write them out. So, thank-you for your input on this subject and I'll say "hear,hear"!
As a Christian, it seems I go against the norm to be somewhat to the left of things politically. I want to make my decisions and votes based on the individual merits rather than based on which party is promoting the cause. I cringe when notable "evangelical" preachers say things in the name of "God" or "Christianity", as if all Christians would naturally hold that view. Often, I have just the opposite opinion and don't want them speaking for me as a Christian. If they own their opinions as theirs, then fine. If they support a cause individually, then fine. If they ban together with other like-minded persons (Christian or not) to support what they see as a good cause, fine. As long as it isn't held up as a "Christian" requirement to agree with them, I see no problem.
As usual, linking politics and religion together is a delicate operation. I'm glad I'm not in a position to make the news!
And I pray for ALL our polititions to make wise decisions. I sure hope God knows what he is doing with Bush and his cronies! I sure don't! ;)
OK - I'll shut up!
-tisha |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1318
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 8:19 pm: | |
Thanks all for your input. Dennis, I agree with you on Billy Graham staying away from specific political issues, although, thankfully he did publicly endorse our current President Bush, and he said he broke precedent because the issues of respect for human life were too important to ignore.
Yes, Christians should care about the environment, and care about human suffering and AIDS etc. But I think these evangelicals stepped over a fine line to take a stand against President Bush on an issue that is not scientifically proven, and is really nothing more than a pure political statement. When the social gospel becomes more important than proclaiming God's inerrant Word, then we are in trouble. I believe a lot of this results from the trend away from solid Biblical expository preaching, and instead substituting light topical sermons. This seems to be the trend.
Stan |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 10:46 pm: | |
But what evidence is there this is in anyone's pulpits or even in their church? Should abortion be spoken about from the pulpit? Since 9/11, I have to admit, abortion isn't near as high on my list of issues as personal safety. It just seems like criticism because we don't like someone. If Rick Warren's name were not on that list, (since no other specific name I recognized was mentioned), would it have caught attention here? It seems as though there is a taint that if RW is associated with it, there has to be a problem with it and it has to be viewed with suspect. I have a personal concern that if Christians stay silent in the public square, some day we won't be able to build churches or read Bibles or worship as we please because no one will see us as citizens with real rights of opinion, votes and credibility. Billy Graham may have stayed out of politics, but there has been harsh criticism of him for his association with popes and other religious leaders and even a watered down gospel. When asked about the issue of homosexuality, I have heard him say "the Bible calls it a sin". He's been interviewed lots of times in the secular media, even if he hasn't advocated for a particular issue.
As long as I don't see a conflict with scripture and one's personal freedoms, I don't know we have to assume the worse. And it's an issue of consistency of expectations for pastors based upon the word of God, not our personal comfort. We may not agree. We might even be right. Lord knows, most of us on this forum are here because we were wrong about something before. Maybe we will be again. I'd like to see some grace towards my ignorance ... and try to do accordingly. Yes, if they are in error, it is certainly "out there". At the same time, they remain American citizens with rights not contrary to scripture, best I can tell. I heard too there is another Christian group forming with the opposing view. It could be an interesting thing to watch (as Tisha said, as long as no one begins to speak for me). If we've got chapter and verse that says once a pastor, no other talk can come out of your mouth except the word of God, then I'm with you. Until then, just as I cannot convince my SDA "friends" of their error of ways, I have to trust the Holy Spirit will guide those who are really interested in listening to the truth in HIS time. How many on here earnestly and errantly proclaimed falsehoods? Were you convinced to change your mind by argument and accusations about your character? Who could have convinced you otherwise? I won't personally cast the first stone....even the woman caught in adultery was in clear sin and forgiven. This issue is not one of Biblical error. That IS different than speaking against things that are really being proclaimed as "gospel" when they're not. It seems if you speak about it and someone reports it, it is now "gospel abuse". I do not disagree that Bible study in a number of churches has gotten shallower...but I don't think it is because Rick Warren is alive and walks the earth. I don't think he has THAT much power. Unless all Christians should be banned from public/political voice, I don't understand the negativity towards a few who speak. The rest of this really just seems to be negative speculation and gossip at this point as there is very little that has actually happened beyond the signing of some document.
As for disagreeing with Bush, even I'm beginning to question some things...and I've been a strong supporter. The country has some real issues, and he's lost a lot of credibility. I don't think that's doing Christians much good as his primary support group. He gives new meaning to the term lame duck. The only encouraging thing I've heard lately is that Hiliary is perceived as too angry to be a serious candidate for president. Cuz I think she'd win. THAT scares me, and that will be the end of my political commentary for the evening....morning as it is already "tomorrow" in my part of the country.
One day, I may wake up and find out I was wrong...won't be the first time, won't be the last. It's my opinion, not a hill to die on to me. But what applies to one Christian ought to apply to me too...and I'm not ready to give up my right to speak up about the rights for special needs kids or any of the other areas that some day I'll want to be vocal about. |
Wooliee
Registered user
Username: Wooliee
Post Number: 54
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 9:49 am: | |
I've heard "seeker friendly" mentioned on this forum a few times, and I am just wondering exactly what it means. Are you refering to the Joel Osteens, Rick Warrens, and Max Lucados of the Christian community?
My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that I have been helped a lot by their message of hope, having a positive outlook, knowing that Jesus loves me deeply and personally, and wants to help me each day of my life in every aspect. I went back to the Bible to look up those verses about God's desire for me, salvation, and grace. Growing up Adventist, that was not the case. To me God was someone who loved me, but didn't have time for me personally. The important thing was to do right and know the truth about the sabbath, jewelry, the health message, etc.
Julie |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 7:38 am: | |
As I understand the term, it basically means that the presumption is the person in the pew is not a Christian or with a Biblical background. Their messages are more "milk" than "meat". Their musical style is generally contemporary and praise songs more than the traditional hymns and organ.
I personally wouldn't mix any of those men you mentioned in the same group. Joel has a health/wealth type message and a suspect version of the gospel, while he is certainly positive and has some truth in what he says, I've not personally been comfortable he presents the gospel accurately as I've heard him. I don't know if RW is classified in the seeker movement, but he is certainly pastor of a mega church. Max is a generally well respected pastor and I don't think he's classified as seeker either, but he's more a traditional church theologian than Rick Warren, so I wouldn't put them together either.
The only church I know is considered "seeker" is Willow Creek in Chicago. They presume those in the pews on weekend services may have little biblical background and they use elementary type teachings. Their more indepth studies are during the week or in small group environments. People I know personally who have experienced their worship services say they are incredible, even Greg Taylor speaks positively of his experiences when he visited (page 4 of his "manifesto"), but there are many others who are critical of them. I do not personally know anyone there, but my pastor is personal friends with a number of the staff there and the sister of one of our guitar players is on the praise team there. My music minister calls their family one of the most spiritually deep he knows. The individuals I know believe the individuals they know are sincere Christians with a true heart to share Christ with a lost world. But you will read lost of criticism for their methods, and some even question their salvation. I, obviously, think that's unfair just because of who I know that personally know some of the individuals being accused. They're not perfect, but because of the spotlight being on them, it certainly seems some expect them to be. I have never attended services of any of the men, though I have personally heard Max Lucado speak when he visited where I work (awesome!) and I have listened to one or two complete sermons of Rick Warren's. I've tried to listen to Joel but he's not on at very convenient times here...I think I've heard him 15 minutes at any given time. So, most of what I "know" about his messages are hearsay, not personal knowledge. So, take anything said accordingly.
That's what I "know" with appropriate disclaimers. |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 9:01 am: | |
I agree basically with Melissa. Joel Osteen is a FALSE PROPHET. He is leading millions down a wrong path. I have never classified RW as a false teacher, but I have some serious reservations about methods that minimize expository preaching of the Bible.
Both RW and Max Lucado endorse the false ministry of TD Jakes who denies the Trinity and is basically oneness pentecostal, and both men are compromised with the false church of Roman Catholicism, so just be wary, but I am not judging their hearts.
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 9:07 am: | |
For an evangelical concern about the seeker movement in general I would refer folks to the following excerpt from John MacArthur's book "Ashamed of the Gospel" and this approaches the topic generically www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/mac12.htm
Stan |
Wooliee
Registered user
Username: Wooliee
Post Number: 58
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 6:56 am: | |
Thank you Melissa and Stan for the information. Max Lucado is one of my favorite authors and I heard him speak at a Michael W. Smith / Third Day concert a couple of years ago. It was in San Jose, California, and seeing all the different people from practically every culture and Christian denomination raising their hands in praise and prayer gave me goosebumps! It was like a glimpse of what Heaven will be. When I told some of my SDA friends they kind of looked at me like, "yeah, whatever." I guess when you believe that Heaven will be mostly Adventist that is a stretch.
I'm not really familiar with TD Jakes or oneness pentecostal, but I am surprised to hear that Lucado would support a ministry that denies the trinity. Wow! Anyway, thanks again.
Julie |
|
