# Al Martin's sermons on Christian Liberty



## Authorised (Sep 6, 2004)

Perhaps some people on this board have been following Al Martin's Christian liberty sermons on sermonaudio...I have, and I've been enjoying them; but then I remembered his sermon on The Passion movie a few months ago. So when he came to no. 14 in his series, he went into detail to explain why the church could not have any forced conformity on disputed issues. 

Considering that he gave his congregation the choice between Mel Gibson and him, why is he now talking about forced conformity in a negative light? Seems like he would go for that sort of thing...


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 6, 2004)

[quote:6204648d46="Authorised"]Perhaps some people on this board have been following Al Martin's Christian liberty sermons on sermonaudio...I have, and I've been enjoying them; but then I remembered his sermon on The Passion movie a few months ago. So when he came to no. 14 in his series, he went into detail to explain why the church could not have any forced conformity on disputed issues. 

Considering that he gave his congregation the choice between Mel Gibson and him, why is he now talking about forced conformity in a negative light? Seems like he would go for that sort of thing...[/quote:6204648d46]

Aaron,

That is because Christian liberty does not give license to sin:

[quote:6204648d46="WCF 20"]20.2. God alone is Lord of the conscience,(10) and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.(11) So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience12) and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.(13)

10. James 4:12; Rom. 14:4, 10; I Cor. 10:29
11. Acts 4:19, 5:29; I Cor. 7:22-23; Matt. 15:1-6, 9; 23:8-10; II Cor. 1:24
12. Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 4:9-10; 5:1
13. Rom. 10:17; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Rev. 13:12, 16-17; Jer. 8:9; I Peter 3:15

III. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.(14)

14. Gal. 5:13; I Peter 2:16; II Peter 2:19; Rom. 6:15; John 8:34; Luke 1:74-75
[/quote:6204648d46]

So when we see that the Passion is a violation of the 2nd commandment:

[quote:6204648d46="Westminster Larger Catechism 109"]Q109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A109: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the [b:6204648d46]making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever[/b:6204648d46]; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.[26][/quote:6204648d46]

We are compelled to speak against sin.


----------



## Authorised (Sep 6, 2004)

I suppose then, that it muddies the waters to even begin defining what sin is relative to movies. 


I suppose I would think it more dishonoring to God to watch a movie where one knowingly subjects himself to a two hour struggle over lust, rather than one which causes someone to think about Christ. 

Is reading a book such as "The Purpose Driven Life," a book which finds a more proper place in the bird cage than the bookshelf, any less edifying or heretical than the Passion? 

Why aren't all movies condemned by those on this board when Richard Baxter, a Puritan often quoted, calls stage plays just another case of sinful flesh pleasing?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 6, 2004)

[quote:ea062e7b8b="fredtgreco"]


We are compelled to speak against sin.[/quote:ea062e7b8b]

In some ways that is why the Reformed Faith is even more offensive to mainline Evangelicals than the Five Points. I worked a booth for my church at my school for a School Exposition. We were handing out banner of truth pamphlets that explained what we believe. The most offensive pamphlets were not the ones that spoke of God's sovereignty, but the ones that spoke out against the passion. I actually saw people bristle at that! On a humorous side note, I came expecting to debate election or the atonement but we actually gave out more pamphlets on infant baptism!


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 6, 2004)

[quote:fd90cee7e8="Authorised"]I suppose then, that it muddies the waters to even begin defining what sin is relative to movies. 


I suppose I would think it more dishonoring to God to watch a movie where one knowingly subjects himself to a two hour struggle over lust, rather than one which causes someone to think about Christ. 

Is reading a book such as "The Purpose Driven Life," a book which finds a more proper place in the bird cage than the bookshelf, any less edifying or heretical than the Passion? 

Why aren't all movies condemned by those on this board when Richard Baxter, a Puritan often quoted, calls stage plays just another case of sinful flesh pleasing?[/quote:fd90cee7e8]

If you want to condemn all movies with lust in it, more power to you. My doctrine of sin is still in the working but I would surmise to say that the Rick Warren book would fall under the sin of sloth and wasting time. As bad as Rick Warren literature is, it is not making an image of our Lord. As to your last sentence, if you want us to condemn all movies with sinful flesh pleasing on this board, well, we could, but I don't have the time. Let it be known that movies like "Wild Things," "Cold Mountain," or anything else with sex or lust in it recieve my categorical condemnation, even without me watching them. 

[i:fd90cee7e8]I suppose I would think it more dishonoring to God to watch a movie where one knowingly subjects himself to a two hour struggle over lust, rather than one which causes someone to think about Christ. [/i:fd90cee7e8]

I agree with you on one hand. Seeing a lustful movie would hinder my daily sanctification more than seeing the passion. But the problem with the passion is that it causes someone to think about Christ in ways that could lead to sin, nevermind the fact that it would easily be condemned by the Westminster Divines in their exposition on the Second Commandment in the Larger Catechism.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 6, 2004)

[quote:aa0a528b82="Authorised"]I suppose then, that it muddies the waters to even begin defining what sin is relative to movies. 

I suppose I would think it more dishonoring to God to watch a movie where one knowingly subjects himself to a two hour struggle over lust, rather than one which causes someone to think about Christ.[/quote:aa0a528b82]

Actually, I would not argue that at all. I would argue that a sin of the flesh is not nearly as serious as one that seeks to bring God under our subjection - and that is what violations of the 1st and 2nd commandments do. The biblical record of God's wrath against sin speaks far more for violating the 1st and 2nd commandments than the 7th. Take a look at Exodus 32 - the people did commit fornication, but that is not what they were punished for; rather it was their violation of the 2nd commandment (and lest we think we can use the excuse of them worshipping Egyptian deities, see who the feast day is to: it is to YHWH.

Also, not to be practical, but the Passion also did not get people to think about Jesus in a very Biblical way. As an evangelism tool and even a spur to evangelism, it fell completely flat:

[quote:aa0a528b82="Barna Group"]Overall, one out of every ten viewers of The Passion (10%) indicated that they had changed some aspect of both their religious beliefs and practices in response to the movie.

Among the most startling outcomes drawn from the research is the apparent absence of a direct evangelistic impact by the movie. Despite marketing campaigns labeling the movie the "œgreatest evangelistic tool" of our era, less than one-tenth of one percent of those who saw the film stated that they made a profession of faith or accepted Jesus Christ as their savior in reaction to the film"(tm)s content.

Equally surprising was the lack of impact on people"(tm)s determination to engage in evangelism. Less than one-half of one percent of the audience said they were motivated to be more active in sharing their faith in Christ with others as a result of having seen the movie[/quote:aa0a528b82]

See more here:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=167


----------



## turmeric (Sep 6, 2004)

Oh,no! The Passion debate returns - this time on DVD!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 6, 2004)




----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 6, 2004)

Where can I get these sermons?


----------



## daveb (Sep 6, 2004)

[quote:7f9e0c7df2="houseparent"]Where can I get these sermons?[/quote:7f9e0c7df2]

Check here:

http://www.tbcnj.org/sermons/Sermons1.html


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 6, 2004)

I didnt even hear of the debate until I watched it... then when I watched it I didnt see the point in making the movie. I did not like it to much and it did not edify me at all. All I learnt was I knew more hebrew and aramaic than I thought  

I do not see what is that wrong with Rick Warrens works. He may not have perfect theology but no one does. His books are not long indepth looks at human nature but a basic guide to practicle Christianity. Leaders at my church at first did not like the Purpose Driven Life but then they realised it was not meant to be a theological explanation etc... but a single, simple aid for people who maybe have never given thought to these things. It may not be as good as the writtings of other great preachers but this is in the common tongue which even the uneducated can understand and I believe it is a good start for people who want to 'educate' themselves by reading. If I did not get into the habit of reading non-Biblical books ever day for fun as I did with one of Rick Warrens books, I would not have then started to read Foxes Book of Martyrs, Jonathan Edwards Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and Augustines confessions. (Although to tell you the truth I havent read all of any of them as they are so interesting I read them all at once  )


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 7, 2004)

Rick Warren is Pelagian.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 7, 2004)

Actually, in an interview that Rick Warren had with Modern Reformation magazine, he said that he was a monergist. This is not to say I approve of his works, which I do not. I'm just saying that I'm not sure whether we can call him a synergist or not, since I've heard claims that he is and isn't, based on different quotations of his. Furthermore, even if he is, hardly [i:cb72d7c746]anyone[/i:cb72d7c746] is actually "Pelagian" in the true sense of the word anymore. Even most Arminianistic evangelicals today are not "Arminian" in the full sense of the word, and even people who [i:cb72d7c746]are[/i:cb72d7c746] full Arminians are still not even semi-Pelagian in the truest sense. So I highly doubt that he's actually Pelagian, in any case.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 7, 2004)

Dude, his mentor is Rob Schuller. Warren said that anyone can be saved if "you appeal to their felt needs". Whether or not he is consistent is another fish. I've read the interview before, and I seriously doubt his claims to being monergist.


----------



## Mayflower (Sep 7, 2004)

I read "purpose driven church",and for me it ws the worse book i ever read in my life, i was really shock to read how the books is filled with a postmodern, humanistic and pragmatic spirit. He talks about a church service for non - christians ? Where do i find it in the Bible ? Is a Churchservice not a holy assembly of christians ? And heard already from others that his book 'purpose driven life" is also so humanistic, where can you find in that book a explanation of what repentance means ?, what it means to die to sin ?


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 7, 2004)

[quote:d0737f2a2d="Mayflower"]I read "purpose driven church",and for me it ws the worse book i ever read in my life, i was really shock to read how the books is filled with a postmodern, humanistic and pragmatic spirit. He talks about a church service for non - christians ? Where do i find it in the Bible ? Is a Churchservice not a holy assembly of christians ? And heard already from others that his book 'purpose driven life" is also so humanistic, where can you find in that book a explanation of what repentance means ?, what it means to die to sin ?[/quote:d0737f2a2d]That is why I say it is not complete - and certainly is not a good introduction to Christianity for nonChristians who do not know such things as repentance etc... Please do not get me wrong, I am not his biggest fan.

Also when judging an author like this we can get varrying opinions. We should ask him what he believes and within reason not jump to conclusions by what he writes. If he writes a book of heresy then we might be able to 'judge' him on that but I do not like the idea of pulling out quotes etc... and saying this is his opinion. He, as all of us are, are human and are prone to error. Not just in beliefs but in writing also. We should be slow to condemn someone just incase they have worded something in the wrong way or have no explained themselves fully.

My understanding of the Purpose-Driven Life after reading it is that it is big on submission etc... and obeying God. It is not that big on repentance although it does mention sin. Rick Warren himself believes in it although one of his mentors does not (yes there is a problem here that he might change) but just because a HUMAN book does not say EVERYTHING we want it to say doesnt really make it terrible to an extent (Rick Warren is more into missing important things out than putting bad things in I believe). I have not read his Purpose Driven Church so I can not comment on it.

In conclusion - anyone intelligent enough to find this site and join probably doesnt 'need' to read his book ie. it is at the most basic level of thought.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Sep 7, 2004)

I'll admit that I've tried to read PDL several times just so I could talk about it better, and I couldn't read past the first few chapters.


----------



## Authorised (Sep 7, 2004)

I didn't think the pope comment was THAT bad...


----------



## pastorway (Sep 8, 2004)

now you know.........


----------



## Authorised (Sep 8, 2004)

lol


----------

