Horton's debate with Robert Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
no one just saying.

http://www.rca.org/churches/search.html?query=crystal+cathedral

blade

Ah, yes, I understand. No, not a laughing matter in the least.

Below is the link to the beliefs of the Reformed Church in America. If they truly believe these things, I don't see how Schuller could be part of their denomination. However, as I said earlier, we Southern Baptists have Rick Warren.

http://www.rca.org/aboutus/beliefs/index.html

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Ivan]
 
Originally posted by Ex Nihilo
Was it Horton who said at one point "I'm Presbyterian"? I used to think he was Presbyterian, then I thought he was generally Reformed since he's a member of the CRC. But does he consider himself Presbyterian?

Horton is referring to the Bible's model for church government - it is "Presbyterian" by design. Hey, did you know - the Bible teaches a particular denominational design?!

Horton is Reformed Episcopal, attending a United Reformed church.

Schuller is "Dutch Reformed".

Now here's the confusing stuff...Horton adhere's to confessions in a denomination that actually C A R E S about matching the confessions to the confessors. Sadly, the Dutch Reformed denomination really doesn't have a say to folks like Schuller....much like Rick Warren is SBC. The SBC has no part with Warren's church membership. But, you can be sure, both the Dutch Reformed and the SBC administrations love to receive the $$$ rewards of these megachurch spin doctors.

So keep this in mind. Many times a denomination will have its confessions/statement of faith in print - and yet, no one (including the Pastor) will really agree with or hold to them! Talk about schizophrenia! OY! :banghead:

We must know the 3 signs of the One True Church, as taught in Scripture; the True Gospel and the doctrine of Justification -- so well, that we can discern a True Church.

Don't depend on the label "Reformed".

Sola Scriptura! :pilgrim:

Robin

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Robin]
 
Originally posted by ARStager
I don't think I've ever heard of the United Reformed Churches of North America

URCNA is Mike Horton's denomination, along with R. Scott Clark and Kim Riddlebarger. Just a little FYI

Hey - I'm URCNA! Kim is my pastor and of course, we get a lot of supplemental teaching from Mike and Scott.

They tell us, we are the smallest of the Reformed denominations --- but the fiercest for the Gospel (In my humble opinion.)

Find all links/info about URCNA here:

http://www.christreformed.org/index.shtml

:cool:

Robin
 
Robin:

I have TONS of respect for URCNA---If I'm ever a pastor, I hope to be ordained in that denom---maybe even plant one near Akron, Oh since there aren't any in OH. I'm jealous that you get to attend a URCNA church.

Horton is Reformed Episcopal

Reformed Episcopal? Explain...
 
We must know the 3 signs of the One True Church, as taught in Scripture; the True Gospel and the doctrine of Justification -- so well, that we can discern a True Church.

You're absolutely right: justification by faith alone is the "doctrine of the standing church"

perhaps to summarize most succinctly what reformed Christians call the "church catholic", you would say that a true church is wherever the Word is correctly preached, the sacraments are correctly administered, and church discipline is executed.
 
Originally posted by Robin

Sadly, the Dutch Reformed denomination really doesn't have a say to folks like Schuller....much like Rick Warren is SBC. The SBC has no part with Warren's church membership. But, you can be sure, both the Dutch Reformed and the SBC administrations love to receive the $$$ rewards of these megachurch spin doctors.

Robin speaks the truth.
 
Originally posted by Ivan
I didn't mean he is Reformed Reformed, just Reformed! Or maybe it's reformed.

...It seems like not too long ago, Reformed Baptists on the forum caught considerable flack about using the term 'Reformed'. I thought I was beginning to understand the issue, but now I find out Robert Schuller is reformed.

OK, let's start from the beginning, slowly, what it means to be reformed...

:lol:
 
Schuller is definitely a part of the RCA: By far, the most liberal of the Dutch "Reformed".

If you look at their "ecumenical partners" link on their homepage, you'll instantly see their Reformed in name only: They're members of the World Council of churches, they like the ELCA, the PCUSA, and UCOC...I can only think of 2 apostate denoms that are more liberal: United Methodist and the mainline Episcopal church.
 
Originally posted by blhowes
Originally posted by Ivan
I didn't mean he is Reformed Reformed, just Reformed! Or maybe it's reformed.

...It seems like not too long ago, Reformed Baptists on the forum caught considerable flack about using the term 'Reformed'. I thought I was beginning to understand the issue, but now I find out Robert Schuller is reformed.

OK, let's start from the beginning, slowly, what it means to be reformed...

:lol:

I am with you Bob. I am learning that not all Presbyterians are the same, not all Baptists are the same, not all Lutherans are the same, and on and on. When someone tells you they are this or that it take a few key questions to get to the truth of the matter. And now it sounds like it's not enough just to say you are reformed too.
rant.gif
 
Wasn't the debate done quite a while ago? Years ago I had a tape of debate between those two and it sounds just like what you are describing.

For what it's worth, it may well be that at the time that Horton was a presbyterian (before he joined the URCNA.)
 
Originally posted by AdamM
Wasn't the debate done quite a while ago? Years ago I had a tape of debate between those two and it sounds just like what you are describing.

For what it's worth, it may well be that at the time that Horton was a presbyterian (before he joined the URCNA.)

That was my hypothesis once I realized the interview was in 1992.
 
Hey, Again....

Bob's important question: "what does it mean to be Reformed" takes us back all the way to Luther...to Paul writing to the Romans.

Let me try to smush a huge sweeping story into a few paragraphs here....

Our membership classes at CRC, covered Church History- of all the denoms - yet, tracing the Gospel (Reformed) thread. Amazing stuff - to 1. know what the true Gospel is and 2. trace it throughout church history to see how it was embraced; rejected; warped; kept pure - and everything in between. BTW, this is how the URCNA became the URC! They decided to make the doctrine of Justification the hill to die on.

The Gospel and the doctrine of justification (via Romans/Paul) is the "ground zero" of what it classically means to be "Reformed". Of course, there are fine details involved. The Heidelberg & Belgic Confessions; Canons of Dordt all reveal the historic battle for the Reformation faith/tradition.

For us - in a post-modern; Americanized Christianity; anti-intellectual; relativistic; pluralistic culture...we must sort through more spiritual seduction than persecution at sword's point! Today's labels like "evangelical" have diluted or changed the true meaning of the word. Not to mention the religious "residue" baggage we bring with us. It's a mess!

The best thing is to GET A COPY of the Heidelberg/Belgic/Dordt; WCF. Read them - know them - make sure to study the Scripture references (for they are summaries of the Scriptures). Reflect on these important confessions - they were assembled by Christians who died for the Reformed Faith. Start here...before indulging in contemporary works.

These "catechisms" are important - they are organized well and clearly teach the essentials: Christology; Soteriology; Providence; Redemption; Reprobation, etc. :book2:

I am certain the historic Reformers had Peter's warnings in mind....

2 Peter 3:15-17
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

:eek: Robin
 
Robin:

I'm jealous of your membership classes. I thought we were going to get catechism, but all we got was "here's how you can fit in to the life of our church." I was pretty disappointed. It was kind of a bummer, too, since so many of the folks in our "inquirer's class" were wandering in from dispensational baptist backgrounds.
 
Dont hate me....

but when I listened to the interview last night, I found myself feeling extremely sorry for Robert Schuller. I'm no fan of Schuller's, but he had a point: this interview was at night, he had been up since 4:30am, he had already preached 3 sermons that day among other things. Then, he gets to this "interview" and it wasn't much of an interview at all, but more of a "calling to account" of all his abherrant lines throughout his past writings. Now certainly as a leader of the church, he should be held accountable for his teachings, but I think he felt blindsided and ganged up on. He said it would have been a gentleman-like thing to do to know what he was getting into before he arrived, and Horton didn't have the humility (in my opinion) to apologize and try to reconcile with that brother. It sounds like he was booked on false pretenses and given the "bait and switch". -Now get this- I'm a HUGE fan of Michael Horton and NOT a fan of Schuller, so for me to say this is really something.

Also, Schuller said he believed in ALL of the essential doctrines when asked about them. He said that he had memorized the catechisms and believes EVERY word! He should be taken at his word when he says that he stands by the Biblical doctrines leading to salvation. Sure, he has a VERY unhealthy interest in "self esteem" and that's bad. But he admits that everyone is bound for hell unless they trust in God's Provision, Jesus Christ.

I felt very sorry for him, almost to the point of tears. To see a man "torn to pieces" like that was not a pretty sight, and the unloving way in which the callers added fuel to the fire was not very Christ-like. I hope that Robert Schuller will be brought to repentance for the areas in which he has led the sheep astray, but from the sound of it, it doesn't seem like they were heretical teachings, just queer redefinitions that the Church would be better off without, but not that would lead people into Hell.

From the sound of it, I'd take Schuller (if he really believes everything he said he did) over Rick Warren or Joel Osteen.

I though Schuller was a huge false teacher before the interview, a heretic among heretics. I thought he didn't believe in ANY of the essential Biblical doctrines and just promoted a "self esteem" gospel. But when I heard him defend his beliefs in orthodox Christianity I had to change my mind. Perhaps from that date until now he's gone from bad to worse, I have no idea. And again, don't get me wrong, he's NO model teacher, that's for sure.
 
Oh Christopher, I couldn't hate you but I do think you fell into Schuller's trap. Where he sounded orthodox he was attaching psychological meanings to biblical words and doctrines.

I had a bit more respect for him because I realized that he EARNED his doctorate. He is no dummy and he is more than qualified to defend his teachings in a forum with Mike, Rod and Kim. The 'heavy trips' that Schuller referred to were fundamental doctrines that we would master in theology 101. He couldn't win the argument based on scripture so he tried to win the sentiment of the audience. That's what he does for a living. He is a master crowd pleaser. A MASTER!!!!!

Don't fall for that. He is a very clever man and dedicated to a false gospel of "feel goodism" and pop psychology. As a recent guest on Schuller's show, the great theologian Dr. Phil would say, "Come ON people!":banghead:
 
I thought the radio hosts were really nice to Schuller. Just asking a theological question of a fellow theologian should not be hard. It wasn't the question at all, it was the fact that he couldn't answer it without some major gymnastics and he probably was too tired to do it. I think he knows he is compromising but he justifies it to himself by thinking he is giving some comfort and love to people on their way to hell so its ok. He is not capable of tough love. What he doesn't seem to think important is that he is starving the actual sheep in his flocks with this fluff.

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by Augusta]
 
I know, I know, he's fluffy, and I probably fell into his trap, too! Never thought it would happen to me!

I just think he had a right to know that he was coming to an interrogation instead of an interview. But maybe not, I don't know, I'm just giving my 'reaction' to it. Tell you what a "sucker" I am, I just adopted a dog from the SPCA that nobody wanted. She had been there for 2 months and I just couldn't sleep thinking about her there.

But anyway, the thing that really made me feel sorry for him (Schuller) was that he obviously thought he was coming to a "friendly" radio show and it turned out to a realization that these people were not really on his side at all. That can be painful to have happen to you.
 
Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I know, I know, he's fluffy, and I probably fell into his trap, too! Never thought it would happen to me!

I just think he had a right to know that he was coming to an interrogation instead of an interview.
I haven't listened yet, but I'm curious what Schuller expected they would be talking about during the interview?
 
Question: Was Dr. Schuller set up? How did he agree to do the show?
Answer: No, he was not set up. Dr. Schuller was invited to appear on The White Horse Inn by a mutual friend. Later he was sent a formal invitation which explained the program. The evening of the show, he was invited to Michael Horton's house for dinner, during which the format of the show was again explained to him, especially how it emphasizes classical Reformation issues in contrast to a lot of the popular expressions of Christianity. Dr. Schuller responded by saying, "I have no problem with shows like that, as long as I have an opportunity to respond." Because he has redefined sin and grace in psychological terms, Dr. Schuller comes off sounding orthodox until you dig just underneath the surface. That is why Mike had to ask some tough questions. It should be noted, however, that Mike did show a lot of patience and restraint during the broadcast. It was often the case that Dr. Schuller would not let Mike get a word in edgewise, and would frequently revert to storytelling.

Quoted from http://www.ondoctrine.com/1schul01.htm that blade had posted.

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by maxdetail]
 
Originally posted by ARStager
Robin:

I have TONS of respect for URCNA---If I'm ever a pastor, I hope to be ordained in that denom---maybe even plant one near Akron, Oh since there aren't any in OH. I'm jealous that you get to attend a URCNA church.

Horton is Reformed Episcopal

Reformed Episcopal? Explain...

Hey Andrew,

We NEED good URCNA pastors! Go for it! Westminster is the place to study (WTS). The most important goal of the URCNA is the "technique" or preaching style is like the NT model: "Preaching Christ" from the whole Bible.

I can tell anybody - hearing Christ (alone) preached each and every Lord's day is like being drenched in gushes of cool, clean water - as we travel across the desert!

If anyone wants to find out what it means to hear "Christ Preached" check-out the website/sermons for www.christreformed.org. Also, check their "links" and find the URC in Oceanside, CA - where Dr. Scott Clark teaches. The idea is (as you might know) hearing the Gospel (info about Christ) enables the believer to WANT to obey the Law (thus becoming more Christ-like). Moralistic preaching (tips on how to live a better life, etc.) drives the hearer into tyranny and incites even more sin! Most all preaching in Christian churches these days is "moralistic"! (40 Days/Purpose) This is why things like Purpose (self-help books) anything that admonishes "how to" things is an endless rabbit trail of works....sometimes (not always) doomed to failure - but mostly doomed to self-righteousness! Our flesh simply LOVES to hear about how much we can do for ourselves....so it's important to know the difference in these preaching styles!

Imagine Peter (Acts 2) giving his own "personal testimony" on how Jesus changed his life - that everybody hearing him should sign-up and discover their "purpose" in life?! ( Read the Book, people! It's much better than the "movie".)

True Christian preaching should model what was done in Acts. And that is what the URCNA is trying to accomplish - God help us!

R.
 
Originally posted by ARStager
We must know the 3 signs of the One True Church, as taught in Scripture; the True Gospel and the doctrine of Justification -- so well, that we can discern a True Church.

You're absolutely right: justification by faith alone is the "doctrine of the standing church"

perhaps to summarize most succinctly what reformed Christians call the "church catholic", you would say that a true church is wherever the Word is correctly preached, the sacraments are correctly administered, and church discipline is executed.

:amen: Andrew and :amen:

Robin
 
Yikes!

I don't know what I was thinking! I just listened to the debate again, and I don't come away with NEARLY the impression I did the other night!

I withdraw my criticism immediately!

The debate and questioning wasn't harsh at all. I listened to it that first time while I was going to bed and I think I may have had my brain on Delta waves or something. Sure, I still think he was duped a little on the premise, but so what. He had written some whacky things and deserves to be accountable to them.

Ok, I'm back with the rest of ya'll now! :D
 
Christopher:

Interesting. Yeah, I agree that it was a frontal attack, or at least a "confrontation" in the strictest sense of the word. But Horton repeatedly made the point that anyone who writes books has to be prepared to give a defense for what was written. Moreover, Schuller had said that he's all for the discussion as long as he was given a chance to respond. And respond he did. Just really pathetically and evasively.

It was actually really heart-breaking to hear the interview, and to know how indicative the Schuller methodology is of our broader Americanish Christian selectivity in "preaching".

Christ isn't there to improve your self esteem. He's anti-self-esteem, really. He's here to save you from your self-esteem. "You think you've followed the letter of the law, eh? Go sell your posessions and give the proceeds to the poor!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top