# Oprah sings I surrender all with raised hands and tears?!



## ReformedWretch

along with Faith Hill on her show....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S1C1uNLlR4]YouTube - Faith Hill - I Surrender All[/ame]


----------



## SpokenFor

Perhaps God should take them at their word?


----------



## OPC'n

Isn't that taking His name in vain? I don't know Faith Hill, but Oprah doesn't believe that Jesus is the only way. She believes that He is just one in many ways. So since she believes this way and yet sings this song, wouldn't that be taking His name in vain?


----------



## toddpedlar

SpokenFor said:


> Perhaps God should take them at their word?



Considering God knows their hearts, "taking them at their word" isn't relevant for Him. 

We, too, needn't take these words at face value, since (in Oprah's case at least) we have overwhelming evidence of the rotten fruit of blasphemy and self-actualization. Perhaps Oprah has suddenly converted - but I'll continue to pray for her conversion until I see fruit consistent with conversion.


----------



## Zeno333

sjonee said:


> Isn't that taking His name in vain? I don't know Faith Hill, but Oprah doesn't believe that Jesus is the only way. She believes that He is just one in many ways. So since she believes this way and yet sings this song, wouldn't that be taking His name in vain?



She also believe in the wrong Jesus...

She is a Course in Miracles follower, and the Course is claimed to have be "written" by Jesus.

-----Added 1/13/2009 at 07:48:39 EST-----



sjonee said:


> Isn't that taking His name in vain? I don't know Faith Hill, but Oprah doesn't believe that Jesus is the only way. She believes that He is just one in many ways. So since she believes this way and yet sings this song, wouldn't that be taking His name in vain?



The only way that Oprah or anyone can believe that the different religions are all valid pathways, is to believe that God has a "schizoid" split nature and personality.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The song appeals to the Gnostic in Oprah. If you read the lyrics, it's a love song more than a song about worship.


----------



## Barnpreacher

I think I heard recently where Oprah is losing some of her audience, so she's playing the politician card in going after the moral majority.


----------



## tdowns

*Yeah*

People tear up about everything, music is emotionally driven, sparks things in us, whatever...it's the same case that people make in the Hollywood Professional Musician driven "worship" here in California, the music, drives people to tears, so, the Holy Spirit must be there.

People literally feed off of it, go to churches where heresy--or at best weak preaching--is the norm, so they get their emotional tear fix...has nothing to do with true Christianity in my opinion.

Having said that, I cry like a baby sometimes, when thinking of God's Grace on me, so I'm not against emotions, and I DO PRAY, that, these are real tears of repentance and the Holy Spirit led reality, that unlike her statement on a previous show, WE DO NEED Jesus TO PAY FOR OUR SINS.

Pray for her, she's no farther gone than I was, the moment I first believed.


----------



## Ivan

Sickening


----------



## AThornquist

Is Oprah singing "I surrender all" to the universal law of attraction or something? She is so inconsistent. Then again, if "any way leads to heaven," I guess she can pick and choose what she wants to be emotional about.

But Faith Hill--wow. I would feel very awkward singing with Oprah since she isn't saved. I wonder how they felt


----------



## Zenas

tdowns007 said:


> People tear up about everything, music is emotionally driven, sparks things in us, whatever...it's the same case that people make in the Hollywood Professional Musician driven "worship" here in California, the music, drives people to tears, so, the Holy Spirit must be there.
> 
> People literally feed off of it, go to churches where heresy--or at best weak preaching--is the norm, so they get their emotional tear fix...has nothing to do with true Christianity in my opinion.
> 
> Having said that, I cry like a baby sometimes, when thinking of God's Grace on me, so I'm not against emotions, and I DO PRAY, that, these are real tears of repentance and the Holy Spirit led reality, that unlike her statement on a previous show, WE DO NEED Jesus TO PAY FOR OUR SINS.
> 
> Pray for her, she's no farther gone than I was, the moment I first believed.



I cried when I heard a Taylor Swift song. That doesn't mean I worship and obey Taylor Swift. Quite the contrary.


----------



## AThornquist

Zenas said:


> I cried when I heard a Taylor Swift song.



Are you one of those guys who sings along with the radio, "you'll be the prince and I'll be the princess"? 

Just curious.


----------



## Zenas

My wife and I had a tough time with her parents.


----------



## AThornquist




----------



## Wannabee

Semper Fidelis said:


> The song appeals to the Gnostic in Oprah. If you read the lyrics, it's a love song more than a song about worship.



Really? I hope it doesn't derail the thread for me to disagree a bit. 



> Judson Van De Venter wrote this text after surrendering his many talents to his all-wise Savior:
> For some time, I had struggled between developing my talents in the field of art and going into full-time evangelistic work. At last the pivotal hour of my life came, and I surrendered all. A new day was ushered into my life, I became an evangelist and discovered down deep in my soul a talent hitherto unknown to me. God had hidden a song in my heart, and touching a tender chord, He caused me to sing.​After making his decision to devote his life to Christian service, Van De Venter ministered with much blessing in extensive evangelistic work both at home and abroad. Billy Graham is one of many who claim that Judson Van De Venter had greatly influenced their lives and ministry.
> All to Jesus I surrender, all to Him I freely give; I will ever love and trust Him, in His presence daily live.
> All to Jesus I surrender, humbly at His feet I bow; worldly pleasures all forsaken, take me, Jesus, take me now.
> All to Jesus I surrender, make me, Savior, wholly Thine; let me feel the Holy Spirit—truly know that Thou art mine.
> All to Jesus I surrender, Lord, I give myself to Thee; fill me with Thy love and power; let Thy blessings fall on me.
> 
> Chorus: I surrender all, I surrender all, all to Thee, my blessed Savior, I surrender all.​Kenneth W. Osbeck, _Amazing Grace: 366 Inspiring Hymn Stories for Daily Devotions_, Includes Indexes. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1990), 261.



I realize that the words are not all doctrinally sound. But it is clearly worshipful and displays a dependence on Jesus Christ as Lord. The very words, "I surrender all" are very biblical.

Anyone who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:38, 39)​


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

AThornquist said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cried when I heard a Taylor Swift song.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you one of those guys who sings along with the radio, "you'll be the prince and I'll be the princess"?
> 
> Just curious.
Click to expand...

How about Taylor [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARCnDVc-y_U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARCnDVc-y_U[/ame]Swift with Def Leppard?


----------



## AThornquist

I know atheists who love the song Amazing Grace. I also know that Oprah recognizes Jesus as a spiritual figure but He is _not_ the savior of humanity in her view. She is a very confused individual.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

AThornquist said:


> I know atheists who love the song Amazing Grace. I also know that Oprah recognizes Jesus as a spiritual figure but He is _not_ the savior of humanity in her view. She is a very confused individual.


At least if they were singing "How Great Thou Art" we'd know she was reveling in herself.

Perhaps the surrender mode she is in is for his majesty the president-elect, hope incarnate according to his disciples..er, constituents.


----------



## OPC'n

Wannabee,
thanks for the words of the song...I didn't know the verses. I could only understand her sing the chorus. Where do you feel the song isn't doctrinally sound? Is it in the fact that it states "I" in places? "I will do such and such?" The Psalms does that too. David states the he will sing His praises forever or that he loves His law or that he will meditate on His law day and night, etc. I believe we can say that we will do such and such because we can trust in His promises. Phil 1:6. What do you think?


----------



## Rocketeer

Am I the only one that could only view the first three or four seconds of that song? Really, the way Faith Hill sings it is extremely disrespectful; it sounds blasphemous to me; I stopped the vid at the first occurrence of God's name.

This may seem , and I do not mind a moderator taking my post down, but people, really, is this allowable at a Chrisitan board? Am I just being obnoxious, or is that using the Lord's name in vain? And if it is, why is this posted at a *Puritan*Board? I could be overscrupulous, and I do not wish to rain on someone else's party, but I do not think it is a good thing to do to put this video on this board.


----------



## ReformedWretch

???

How is it taking God's name in vain? Faith Hill (the white woman whos name I mentioned in the original post) claims to be a Christian (though we could debate that) and the "way" she sings the song is wrong in what way exactly?

Also for others in case you were wondering, I did not post this to claim that I think Oprah is a Christian just the opposite actually (notice the smiley I used) meaning I was shocked she seemed so in to it.


----------



## Rocketeer

I saw the smiley, yeah, and I understood your intent.

The whole intent of the song seems to be, to me, mockery, or something of that kind. Maybe it is just me, and I should just shut up and leave this thread, but that really is the impression I get from the singer and the way the song is sung.

I'm not trying to step on your toes, Adam, I really think it is inappropriate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The song appeals to the Gnostic in Oprah. If you read the lyrics, it's a love song more than a song about worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I hope it doesn't derail the thread for me to disagree a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judson Van De Venter wrote this text after surrendering his many talents to his all-wise Savior:
> For some time, I had struggled between developing my talents in the field of art and going into full-time evangelistic work. At last the pivotal hour of my life came, and I surrendered all. A new day was ushered into my life, I became an evangelist and discovered down deep in my soul a talent hitherto unknown to me. God had hidden a song in my heart, and touching a tender chord, He caused me to sing.​After making his decision to devote his life to Christian service, Van De Venter ministered with much blessing in extensive evangelistic work both at home and abroad. Billy Graham is one of many who claim that Judson Van De Venter had greatly influenced their lives and ministry.
> All to Jesus I surrender, all to Him I freely give; I will ever love and trust Him, in His presence daily live.
> All to Jesus I surrender, humbly at His feet I bow; worldly pleasures all forsaken, take me, Jesus, take me now.
> All to Jesus I surrender, make me, Savior, wholly Thine; let me feel the Holy Spirit—truly know that Thou art mine.
> All to Jesus I surrender, Lord, I give myself to Thee; fill me with Thy love and power; let Thy blessings fall on me.
> 
> Chorus: I surrender all, I surrender all, all to Thee, my blessed Savior, I surrender all.​Kenneth W. Osbeck, _Amazing Grace: 366 Inspiring Hymn Stories for Daily Devotions_, Includes Indexes. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1990), 261.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that the words are not all doctrinally sound. But it is clearly worshipful and displays a dependence on Jesus Christ as Lord. The very words, "I surrender all" are very biblical.
> 
> Anyone who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:38, 39)​
Click to expand...


Joe,

So beside the doctrinal errors in the song it's OK? It has gnostic elements within and the vibe of the song, while repeating Biblical elements in a questionable construct where decision precedes the action of God (I surrender now make me thine and let me _feel_ your Holy Spirit).

I could pick nits about other points you make above that I have a problem with but, in the main, the song's design is of the nature of all Revival invitation songs. They are intended to evoke an emotional response and decision from the hearer and that was my point - it has gnostic elements and it appeals to the "inner life" of Oprah - it might touch her but the singing of songs is not what converts us. It is the Gospel.

As somebody pointed out above, Amazing Grace is very popular even outside Christian circles. I once heard a show in SoCal with two homosexuals where they sang the song along with a guest and noted it was their favorite song.

As a point of comparison, Amazing Grace sings praises of grace that precedes faith and the wretchedness of condition and yet it evokes something in its musical structure even to those that still hate God. I Surrender All has none of this structure - Decision precedes God's activity. The commonality in "moving" people is the music and the phrasing.


----------



## Zeno333

AThornquist said:


> I know atheists who love the song Amazing Grace. I also know that Oprah recognizes Jesus as a spiritual figure but He is _not_ the savior of humanity in her view. She is a very confused individual.



There is an altered version of the lyrics that many "non-Christian" churches use...they say "saved a soul like me", instead of "saved a wretch like me". The non-Christian "Unity School of Christianity" church is an example. I would imagine there are also many true Christian traditional churches that also use the altered version of the lyrics.


----------



## LawrenceU

She's probably just having an ol' fashioned flashback to the days of her Baptist church going as a child. Memory lane stuff.


----------



## SpokenFor

toddpedlar said:


> SpokenFor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps God should take them at their word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering God knows their hearts, "taking them at their word" isn't relevant for Him.
> 
> Just for clarification- I was joking. If *I* were god (and Praise Him that I am NOT) I would say to Oprah "oh, you surrender ALL, huh? OK..I'm gonna take it all away, then!"
Click to expand...

 Then we would see how much she would cry with her hand in the air.


----------



## Wannabee

I know Rich. Focus on "a bit" in my comment. I guess I just like that song a bit because I must have sang it 20,000 times when I was a youth. And we all could stand to do a little more dying.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> I know Rich. Focus on "a bit" in my comment. I guess I just like that song a bit because I must have sang it 20,000 times when I was a youth. And we all could stand to do a little more dying.



I've viewed it both ways Joe. I used to be a worship leader in a Church hoping that the invitation would convict others. I used to sing it with abandon, hoping that that singing of it would cause me to "break through" to another level of "letting go" so that I would have victory over sin. I sang it when I was "re-dedicating" myself to God because I once had a fire for him and had walked in too much sin.

I look back with relief today that I'm not caught in an endless cycle like that because I finally had somebody give me a true presentation of the Gospel.

And so, when I saw weary and heavy laden souls in recent years at a Church still caught up with a dead Gospel, this song began to represent for me what is so anemic about the theology behind it. I remember the sadness in my heart to watch certain people regularly "go forward" with tears because they needed to "re-dedicate" after hearing yet another topical sermon that told people how sold out they needed to be but never presented Christ and Him crucified. 

The tears songs like this produce make me angry because they're tears of guilt and not of redemption.


----------



## Pergamum

What are the words anyhow?


----------



## OPC'n

Semper Fidelis said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The song appeals to the Gnostic in Oprah. If you read the lyrics, it's a love song more than a song about worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I hope it doesn't derail the thread for me to disagree a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judson Van De Venter wrote this text after surrendering his many talents to his all-wise Savior:
> For some time, I had struggled between developing my talents in the field of art and going into full-time evangelistic work. At last the pivotal hour of my life came, and I surrendered all. A new day was ushered into my life, I became an evangelist and discovered down deep in my soul a talent hitherto unknown to me. God had hidden a song in my heart, and touching a tender chord, He caused me to sing.​After making his decision to devote his life to Christian service, Van De Venter ministered with much blessing in extensive evangelistic work both at home and abroad. Billy Graham is one of many who claim that Judson Van De Venter had greatly influenced their lives and ministry.
> All to Jesus I surrender, all to Him I freely give; I will ever love and trust Him, in His presence daily live.
> All to Jesus I surrender, humbly at His feet I bow; worldly pleasures all forsaken, take me, Jesus, take me now.
> All to Jesus I surrender, make me, Savior, wholly Thine; let me feel the Holy Spirit—truly know that Thou art mine.
> All to Jesus I surrender, Lord, I give myself to Thee; fill me with Thy love and power; let Thy blessings fall on me.
> 
> Chorus: I surrender all, I surrender all, all to Thee, my blessed Savior, I surrender all.​Kenneth W. Osbeck, _Amazing Grace: 366 Inspiring Hymn Stories for Daily Devotions_, Includes Indexes. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1990), 261.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that the words are not all doctrinally sound. But it is clearly worshipful and displays a dependence on Jesus Christ as Lord. The very words, "I surrender all" are very biblical.
> 
> Anyone who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:38, 39)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> So beside the doctrinal errors in the song it's OK? It has gnostic elements within and the vibe of the song, while repeating Biblical elements in a questionable construct where decision precedes the action of God (I surrender now make me thine and let me _feel_ your Holy Spirit).
> 
> I could pick nits about other points you make above that I have a problem with but, in the main, the song's design is of the nature of all Revival invitation songs. They are intended to evoke an emotional response and decision from the hearer and that was my point - it has gnostic elements and it appeals to the "inner life" of Oprah - it might touch her but the singing of songs is not what converts us. It is the Gospel.
> 
> As somebody pointed out above, Amazing Grace is very popular even outside Christian circles. I once heard a show in SoCal with two homosexuals where they sang the song along with a guest and noted it was their favorite song.
> 
> As a point of comparison, Amazing Grace sings praises of grace that precedes faith and the wretchedness of condition and yet it evokes something in its musical structure even to those that still hate God. I Surrender All has none of this structure - Decision precedes God's activity. The commonality in "moving" people is the music and the phrasing.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I know you're talking to Wannabee, but I'm curious...where do you see Gnosticism? Also, I don't know the song or the author, but I thought he wrote that song as a believer and so he was just giving up things in his life that clutter it up. For example, I gave up movies and tv after being a Christian for some years. That sort of thing. Did he write to show conversion? I'll read it a few more times.


----------



## Wannabee

By the way, Rich, we don't sing this at our church for the very reasons you mentioned.

Sarah, the last line has a gnostic feel to it - sort of a nebulous feel-good spirity thing. The last part of the third line does as well. It is feelings focused, which is much of the problem. But hey, I rededicated myself 9 times to this song, so it must be good...

Actually, I did do that once. I was in tears, wanting more of Christ. But I didn't understand. I went forward and told the pastor that I didn't understand. I told him I wanted more. He presented me to the congregation as one who had rededicated his life. That was just before high school; a time period of my life that was no testimony of the wonders of Christ. Yes, I understand the dangers and abominations of easy-believism very well.



Pergamum said:


> What are the words anyhow?



They're in my earlier post, and in Sarah's above.


----------



## OPC'n

Joe, I understand the precipice on which we can stand in regards to feelings. One shouldn't base their salvation on how one feels that day. However, I think we shouldn't ride the pendulum's swing either. Jonathan Edwards has a good book which you probably have already read called Religious Affections. I've gotten into a few chapters so far and he talks about fake feelings that should be avoided but also true feelings that shouldn't be avoided. I suppose it would depend on the person singing this song and not so much the song itself. It's a bit too sappy for me, but gnostic? I'm not sure I would agree.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> What are the words anyhow?





> All to Jesus, I surrender;
> All to Him I freely give;
> I will ever love and trust Him,
> In His presence daily live.
> 
> Refrain
> 
> I surrender all, I surrender all,
> All to Thee, my blessèd Savior,
> I surrender all.
> 
> All to Jesus I surrender;
> Humbly at His feet I bow,
> Worldly pleasures all forsaken;
> Take me, Jesus, take me now.
> 
> Refrain
> 
> All to Jesus, I surrender;
> Make me, Savior, wholly Thine;
> Let me feel the Holy Spirit,
> Truly know that Thou art mine.
> 
> Refrain
> 
> All to Jesus, I surrender;
> Lord, I give myself to Thee;
> Fill me with Thy love and power;
> Let Thy blessing fall on me.
> 
> Refrain
> 
> All to Jesus I surrender;
> Now I feel the sacred flame.
> O the joy of full salvation!
> Glory, glory, to His Name!





sjonee said:


> Sorry, I know you're talking to Wannabee, but I'm curious...where do you see Gnosticism? Also, I don't know the song or the author, but I thought he wrote that song as a believer and so he was just giving up things in his life that clutter it up. For example, I gave up movies and tv after being a Christian for some years. That sort of thing. Did he write to show conversion? I'll read it a few more times.



Sarah,

The primary issue with most Evangelical expression today is that it descends to the "inner life" of the believer. There is a focus on enthusiasm and devotion. There is a focus on the "heartfelt". It is common for people to talk about being "spiritual" and not religious.

If you read the lyrics of songs prior to to the revival periods, there is a focus on doctrine. Religious content of the lyrics focused on the work of Christ and a redounding of praise on the basis of His completed work.

Revivalism focused on measures to encourage the hearer to a point of decision. There is little in doctrinal content in the song above. There is simply a sort of romantic desire for the singer to "give himself over" and "feel God's presence."

Thus, the focus on religious worship shifts from the objective work of God and Christ's work and its vitality is measured in devotion or feelings.

Thus, when Bill Maher was criticizing Evangelicals as being irrational, a prominent Evangelical criticized back that his faith is "meaningful" to him and that it is wrong of Maher to criticize. In other words, there wasn't a criticism on the basis of historical facts but on the fact that Jesus "completes me."

Honestly, most people don't have a clue about the person and work of Christ but can get teared up singing the above song because it feeds the American religious desire to go to the "inner life". 

I've often quipped that it's often like having romantic feelings for your wife but, when somebody asks you to tell them something about your wife, you answer: "Oh, I don't know anything about her, I just love her. In fact, if I knew too many facts about her then that would destroy the special relationship that I have because it would be "head knowledge" and not "heart knowledge." That's a surprise to any husband whose wives actually care when they forget birthdays or anniversaries or show no interest in understanding them.

It's more appropriate to call it all neo-Gnosticism as opposed the the 2nd & 3rd Century heresies that were much more developed but there are enough parallels in the depreciation of the value of objective Truth in worship that the name is appropriate.

My point to all of this is that it is not surprising that Oprah cries just like anybody else who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't really know who Jesus is but cries about their "love" for Him. It's the same reason why I had no idea, for about a dozen years, that my charismatic experience as a Roman Catholic and charismatic experiences as an "Evangelical" didn't translate to the fact that the two were diametrically opposed on doctrine. To me, I assumed the Reformation occured as a result of enthusiasm - Martin Luther came to encourage people to be "on fire" for Jesus again is what I supposed. It was a breath of fresh air to get away from the "inner life" and see the Gospel once for all and all those illusions disappeared.


----------



## Wannabee

_Religious Affections_ is an excellent book. Of course, one could take a short cut and listen to a few Piper sermons instead. Both Piper and Edwards helped me to get a balance on this issue. Hopefully it's a good balance.

What Rich is addressing is emotionalism - a manipulative appeal to the emotions. All preachers appeal to emotions. But it must be because they are burdened with their own depravity in the light of God's glory as revealed in creation and Scripture. This is what Isaiah to an end of himself, "Woe is me, for I am undone!" The manipulator focuses on results. The man of God focuses on faithfulness.


----------



## OPC'n

Thanks, Rich. I didn't see this line before (I read too quickly sometimes) "Now I feel the sacred flame". That's a bit odd. Is that the line of which you and Joe speak? That one is a little freaky. What is the sacred flame suppose to be I wonder. Ok, trash the song! 

-----Added 1/14/2009 at 10:08:15 EST-----

Exactly, Joe. That's the emotion of which I speak. Maybe I read some of what I feel for God into his song and gave it more than I should have. I'll just blame you for that one though!


----------



## PresbyDane

All the socalled "stars" have no problem just throwing Jesus in with "the rest" money, fame etc.
He wants to be the only one, and that they can not do.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

PuritanBouncer said:


> along with Faith Hill on her show....
> 
> YouTube - Faith Hill - I Surrender All



What's the difference between that and Non-Christians singing Handel's Hallelujah?! And let's be careful - I have found myself singing hymns with my mind wandering off in all sorts of directions. I am also concerned about the face-paint (I think it's called cosmetics!)


----------



## Rocketeer

Dieter Schneider said:


> What's the difference between that and Non-Christians singing Handel's Hallelujah?! And let's be careful - I have found myself singing hymns with my mind wandering off in all sorts of directions. I am also concerned about the face-paint (I think it's called cosmetics!)





What are you suggesting - that any of the things you mention would have been condoned by the puritans?


----------



## Rich Koster

Oprah is a syncretist further mixing up the mixed up.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

Rocketeer said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference between that and Non-Christians singing Handel's Hallelujah?! And let's be careful - I have found myself singing hymns with my mind wandering off in all sorts of directions. I am also concerned about the face-paint (I think it's called cosmetics!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you suggesting - that any of the things you mention would have been condoned by the puritans?
Click to expand...


non seq. I am confused by your answer.


----------



## GTMOPC

Oprah makes me sick.

My mother watches Oprah almost everyday in spite of the fact that her 'religion' is heretical and anti-Christian. Not to mention my mother also thinks Joel Osteen is merely a "motivational speaker' even though he calls himself a pastor and has a church. My mom will become angry and standoffish when confronted with and negative attitude or assessment of either of these characters! 

So Oprah is Christian but not in a traditional orthodox sense and Osteen is a pastor just not in a Christian sense!?

Pray for my mother (who rests on Christ's finished work for salvation) and others (who may be saved b faith also)who are being deceived by this worlds pluralist/syncretist religion.


----------



## Curt

Zeno333 said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way that Oprah or anyone can believe that the different religions are all valid pathways, is to believe that God has a "schizoid" split nature and personality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that called dispensationalism?
Click to expand...


----------



## Wannabee

Curt said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way that Oprah or anyone can believe that the different religions are all valid pathways, is to believe that God has a "schizoid" split nature and personality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that called dispensationalism?
Click to expand...


Sigh...


----------



## OPC'n

Wannabee said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way that Oprah or anyone can believe that the different religions are all valid pathways, is to believe that God has a "schizoid" split nature and personality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that called dispensationalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh...
Click to expand...

 

BTW, I'm not sure why that quote has my name on it....I didn't say it.


----------



## Rocketeer

Dieter Schneider said:


> Rocketeer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference between that and Non-Christians singing Handel's Hallelujah?! And let's be careful - I have found myself singing hymns with my mind wandering off in all sorts of directions. I am also concerned about the face-paint (I think it's called cosmetics!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you suggesting - that any of the things you mention would have been condoned by the puritans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> non seq. I am confused by your answer.
Click to expand...


I do not think a Puritan would have condoned singing praises to the Lord with one's mind wandering off - are you then sincerely praising God? As for cosmetics, if you apply for a job wearing cosmetics on the school where I work, you will not be considered for hiring, even when there are three positions open, simply because you do not conform to the identity of the school (this has happened). I think the Puritans would have had similar concerns, especially considering what Peter says on the issue of women adorning themselves:



1 Peter 3:1-6 said:


> 1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 *Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—* 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.



(Emphasis mine. Mind you, I am not saying she should dress like a scarecrow - so don't go there.)

Lastly, why is a non-Christian singing Handel's Hallelujah? He certainly does not mean what he is singing, he is not praising the Lord. Think by yourself, how did the Lord deal with flattery? He certainly does not praise the flatterer. Or is the singer not flattering? Is he doing it because it is his job? Is God then a way to make a living? How is that not taking the Lord's name in vain?

So again, why would the Puritans, who were seven times our betters, condone, let alone praise such conduct? There is nothing that is good or noble or honorable or even necessary in any of the examples you mention, and there is a whole lot against it.


----------

