Kirk Cameron and Ray COmfort to be on ABC's Nightline

Status
Not open for further replies.

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
Kirk and Ray on ABC's Nightline - Friday
A producer from ABC's Nightline called last month and said that he had seen our TV show and wanted to do an interview with Kirk and Ray. A week later a full camera crew showed up, and ABC flew over a producer and Martin Bashir from New York. Martin Bashir is the hard-hitting reporter who interviewed Princess Diana and conducted the 2003 interview with Michael Jackson. After a spirited, two hour interview we are very excited about its potential for the gospel and for the ministry in general.

We've just been notified that the segment featuring the ministry is scheduled to air this Friday, March 17 at 11:35 pm PST. Please note that Nightline may come on earlier or later in your time zone. Check your local listings. (To check local listings online you can visit AOL Television Listing pages, select your area, and then type in "Nightline" in the search box. From there you should easily be able to see when Nightline comes on in your time zone.)

--------

Should be entertaining.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I really like Kirk Cameron. Anyone who is willing to publicly talk about the importance of the 10 Commandments in the context of modern evangelism deserves respect.

I'll try and watch it.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I really like Kirk Cameron. Anyone who is willing to publicly talk about the importance of the 10 Commandments in the context of modern evangelism deserves respect.

I'll try and watch it.
:ditto: While we may not agree with everything he believes, theologically, at least he is not spreading the typical "fill out this card and you're in" gospel.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Phil 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Did Dordt see Arminius as a Christian? Was the god of Arminius the same God dordt worshipped?

If they are not preaching the Christ of the scriptures, are they preaching Christ at all and if they are not preaching the Christ of the scriptures, are they not wolves in sheeps clothing?

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by joshua
If God's Word gets exposure, regardless of the medium, it shall not return unto Him void, but shall accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.
Josh,
The Mormons and jehovahs Witnesses do this; as well as the RC's. Shall we condone them also?
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by joshua
If God's Word gets exposure, regardless of the medium, it shall not return unto Him void, but shall accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.
Josh,
The Mormons and jehovahs Witnesses do this; as well as the RC's. Shall we condone them also?
That is the difference Scott - and I guess we will have to disagree. Arminius is worlds apart from Mormons and RCs.
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
I checked the link.

Would anybody care to go through just that link, not knowing anything else about them, and tell me what the key areas in their message is that is heretical or false.

I need to read it again fully myself, but I'd be interested in others takes on what "in that link, the front page" is false.

I'm not saying I agree with them, don't know enough about their doctrines, just wondering how their "message" initially is false.

Thanks.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by joshua
If God's Word gets exposure, regardless of the medium, it shall not return unto Him void, but shall accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.
Josh,
The Mormons and jehovahs Witnesses do this; as well as the RC's. Shall we condone them also?
That is the difference Scott - and I guess we will have to disagree. Arminius is worlds apart from Mormons and RCs.
Fred,
I don't quite understand. Is not a cancer a cancer. Whether it is in the lung or metastasized makes no difference. I mean, it's not like a little cancer is better than a lot of it; really!
Josh said that Gods word would not return void; I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, the NWT is generally orthodox except fopr a few places which remove Christs diety. The Mormons use the KJV bible. Just because they do, does not make their theology any more correct, and in the same way we need to be consistant. Either we don't advocate their junk or we do. We can't advocate junk on this side of the street because it seems more orthodox; it must be weighed along the lines we use to discriminate orthodoxy from heresy, and in all of that remain consistant. If not, next in line will be Copeland, Hagan, Hinn, et. al. which will will have to give their due, based upon our consistancy.

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by joshua
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by joshua
If God's Word gets exposure, regardless of the medium, it shall not return unto Him void, but shall accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.
Josh,
The Mormons and jehovahs Witnesses do this; as well as the RC's. Shall we condone them also?
I stand by my statement. I did not mention personalities. I mentioned the exposure of the Word of God. It's not a matter of condoning Mormons, JWs, or RCs. I don't have the ability to condone/approve/disapprove that which ABC does or does not have on their program, but I can tell you I'd be happy if the Word of God, the Gospel, got exposure over its airwaves, rather than the next "Special Investigation". Furthermore, the Reformed aren't being asked to do this, so I'm at least glad that somebody is, that might, in some way or another, be the Pharoah through which God makes His power knonw, or the sewer which sews the good seeds. I'm also thankful that the wolf in sheep's clothing that pastored the free will baptist church at which I was saved, preached the Word of God which changed my life.
So, do you approve of what TBN does; they preach from the bible; or how about the church of Christ; they're on TV also. Copeland, et. al. are helping the cause?

I told my brother the other day that if you asked 100 people on the street what religion they were 75 of them would say 'Christian'! Of the 75, if you asked how many of them were born again, it would wittle it's way down to about 40. From the 40, if you asked them if they had membership in a local church where there was oversite, that would go down to about 20 or so. Jesus said that the path was narrow and few are they that find it. FEW!

Mat 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.

The gospel is an offence! How many people do you know that are agrresively, violently taking the kingdom by force? Are the Arminians doing this? The gospel is one true message; mess that up and everything is wrong. Just because it sounds intriguing does not make it right.

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by tdowns007
Would anybody care to go through just that link, not knowing anything else about them, and tell me what the key areas in their message is that is heretical or false.

I need to read it again fully myself, but I'd be interested in others takes on what "in that link, the front page" is false.

I'm not saying I agree with them, don't know enough about their doctrines, just wondering how their "message" initially is false.

Thanks.
Trevor,
Their message is synergistic. Gods salvation is monergistic.
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
read em and weep boys. Our Dispensational Brethren are the face of American Christianity. :cool: if you can't beat em, join em, or are you guys so intrepid that you want to swim against the tide :cool:

oops, I swim against the tide, but after great reformist go before me. :banana: so in actuality I walk down a path that was made.
 

sosipater

Puritan Board Freshman
Scott,

Can you please explain *specifically* why you say their "message" is synergistic? I assume you can do that from the link you provided.

Thanks,
Russ

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by sosipater]
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
Totally agree.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by tdowns007
Would anybody care to go through just that link, not knowing anything else about them, and tell me what the key areas in their message is that is heretical or false.

I need to read it again fully myself, but I'd be interested in others takes on what "in that link, the front page" is false.

I'm not saying I agree with them, don't know enough about their doctrines, just wondering how their "message" initially is false.

Thanks.
Trevor,
Their message is synergistic. Gods salvation is monergistic.
I'm with you,

I'm thinking of it more as an analysis of how different our message would be in it's context. (For my own sake on how I present the gospel, I've always liked Comfort's style and "Law-Gospel" message).

I mean, if we assume they are talking to the elect in their little write up, would everything they say be o.k. I need to REALLY read it again, but on first glance, it seems, if you assume no one knows who is elect, and we preach as if they are and let God sort it out, is their "WRITTEN MESSAGE IN THAT ONE PAGE LINK" a good presentation of the gospel message?

No tricks here, just honestly wondering about the delivery of the gospel. I guess I could ask, could a Reformed person write what they wrote....'IN THAT ONE PAGE LINK.

And then, of course if they could, then at least the "message" is solid if not the messenger.
:book2:
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by joshua
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
So, do you approve of what TBN does; they preach from the bible; or how about the church of Christ; they're on TV also. Copeland, et. al. are helping the cause?
Again, it's not about my approval. We're talking about ABC, not TBN. ABC is having a showcase...I'd much rather it be Cameron and Comfort talking than a special investigation on "this or that".

The gospel is an offence! How many people do you know that are agrresively, violently taking the kingdom by force? Are the Arminians doing this? The gospel is one true message; mess that up and everything is wrong. Just because it sounds intriguing does not make it right.
The gospel is an offense. I have seen Cameron share the gospel via using the Law, i.e. Ten Commandments (through the power of the Spirit), to bring people under conviction. Will these folks persevere? I don't know. Do all folks persevere who make professions under Reformed preaching? I don't know.
but.....reformed preaching is biblical. Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism is heresy. If they are not preaching the true gospel, that being a gospel held together by a monergistic God, then what are they preaching?

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by joshua
BTW, I'm not disagreeing that some of the things they're saying is synergistic, but that does not thwart God's conviction through the exposure of the Word of God to the human heart.
So, to remain consistant, you must take that to it's farthest conclusion; God uses as well the Mormons, JW's and Hinn to save His people.

Mar 9:38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us."
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.
Mar 9:40 For the one who is not against us is for us.


Is that your understanding of the above verse?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by tdowns007
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by tdowns007
Would anybody care to go through just that link, not knowing anything else about them, and tell me what the key areas in their message is that is heretical or false.

I need to read it again fully myself, but I'd be interested in others takes on what "in that link, the front page" is false.

I'm not saying I agree with them, don't know enough about their doctrines, just wondering how their "message" initially is false.

Thanks.
Trevor,
Their message is synergistic. Gods salvation is monergistic.
I'm with you,

I'm thinking of it more as an analysis of how different our message would be in it's context. (For my own sake on how I present the gospel, I've always liked Comfort's style and "Law-Gospel" message).

I mean, if we assume they are talking to the elect in their little write up, would everything they say be o.k. I need to REALLY read it again, but on first glance, it seems, if you assume no one knows who is elect, and we preach as if they are and let God sort it out, is their "WRITTEN MESSAGE IN THAT ONE PAGE LINK" a good presentation of the gospel message?

No tricks here, just honestly wondering about the delivery of the gospel. I guess I could ask, could a Reformed person write what they wrote....'IN THAT ONE PAGE LINK.

And then, of course if they could, then at least the "message" is solid if not the messenger.
:book2:
Is not the heart of the messenger important to the message? As far as the link, you would have to know more about their ministry. They are elbow to elbow with CC and Cameron is a Lahaye clone.
 

ANT

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by joshua
BTW, I'm not disagreeing that some of the things they're saying is synergistic, but that does not thwart God's conviction through the exposure of the Word of God to the human heart.
So, to remain consistant, you must take that to it's farthest conclusion; God uses as well the Mormons, JW's and Hinn to save His people.

Mar 9:38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us."
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.
Mar 9:40 For the one who is not against us is for us.


Is that your understanding of the above verse?
You could always use Romans 8:28 to show that "all things" are working for the good of the elect. Could you not?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Anthony,
I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.

verse 8:1 states:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
 

ANT

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Is not the heart of the messenger important to the message? As far as the link, you would have to know more about their ministry. They are elbow to elbow with CC and Cameron is a Lahaye clone.
Scott, I just want to throw this out. What about the prophet that was hired to curse Israel, but could do nothing but bless. His heart was not right, but that did not affect the message.

Just a thought, my ... :2cents:
 

ANT

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Anthony,
I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.

verse 8:1 states:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
But would it not apply to the elect that are not saved yet as well. God is sovereign over us before He gives us new life in Christ too. Is it ok to say that in the case of Romans 8:28?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by joshua
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
God uses as well the Mormons, JW's and Hinn to save His people.
God uses His Word to bring His elect unto salvation. God uses Pharoah to make His Name known. God uses Judas to betray His Own Son.

If Paul says, "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.", what does he mean? He's obviously making a contrast between "truth" and "pretense".

pre·tense ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prtns, pr-tns)
n.
The act of pretending; a false appearance or action intended to deceive.
A false or studied show; an affectation: a pretense of nonchalance.
A professed but feigned reason or excuse; a pretext: under false pretenses.
Something imagined or pretended.
Mere show without reality; outward appearance.
A right asserted with or without foundation; a claim. See Synonyms at claim.
The quality or state of being pretentious; ostentation.

I, too, believe that Comfort and Cameron are a far cry from Mormon's and JWs, etc. I'll go back and say once again that I'd much rather see Comfort and Cameron on there talking about the Law of God and how it makes us all sinners in need of God's salvation/God's divine justice, than a special investigation on sweat shops in India.
[/quote]

Josh,
It all comes down to this; is the Arminian Christ the Christ of the scriptures? If it is not, it is no better than what the JW's preach or the Mormons and as reformers we should not advocate anything that is artificial.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by ANT
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Anthony,
I would say that that verse applies to those elect whom are already saved. It is an epistle to the church.

verse 8:1 states:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
But would it not apply to the elect that are not saved yet as well. God is sovereign over us before He gives us new life in Christ too. Is it ok to say that in the case of Romans 8:28?
No. Before Paul was saved, he was an enemy of Christ. Fully at odds w/ God.

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.


Eph 5:8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
I do know that Cameron interviewed MacArthur for their show a year or so ago and that he has a lot of respect for MacArthur. Other than that I really haven't kept up much with their ministry in recent years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top