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

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Humor' started by ReformedWretch, Mar 16, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ANT

    ANT Puritan Board Junior

    I do not disagree that their theology is wrong & they have a bad understanding of Christ and His work.

    But I understand what is being said. Basically ... When someone reads/preaches/teaches/speaks the words that are written in the Bible ... God sends them out for a reason, a purpose, to accomplish what He wants to accomplish ... no matter who is speaking them. They cannot make the Word of God of none effect.
  2. Jeff_Bartel

    Jeff_Bartel Puritan Board Graduate

    The message that Scott linked to is the same o'le "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life..."

    Pray the prayer...walk the isle...

    It has elements of truth in it for sure, but does it present a gospel that is in Christ alone?

    Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and damnable heretics of all shades could whole-heartedly agree with everything presented.

    It's all up to you:

    But if you don't!!!

    With this gospel, the difference between a person going to heaven or hell no longer depends on the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers (which isn't even mentioned!), but my "decision" or "the attitude of my heart."

    Is the gospel we are called to defend?
  3. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Yes. Thats exactly what I'm saying. Preaching is for preachers. These men are not schooled in theology and based upon that they should leave the theology to those whom God has called to preach it. This is exactly how errors are perpetuated. There is an example in scripture (I can't recall where) where God states, "I never sent you to preach, why are you preaching?".
  4. ANT

    ANT Puritan Board Junior

    But Paul was still one of the elect. And I fully believe that God had used everything in his life to accomplish the end He had in mind for Paul's life. God is sovereign over the non-elect as well, but they do not have everything working for them in their life to lead them into life in Christ (salvation). But the elect do ... they are never among the non-elect (even before salvation) .. because the Bible states he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Am I right in this?
  5. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Yes. However, you need to make the distinction between when he was actually saved (in time) and his position with God prior to that. He was like you and I, an enemy.
  6. New wine skin

    New wine skin Puritan Board Freshman

    I side with Greco. Cameron is fine. Just because he may not realize he is is in a monergistic covenant with God, does not take away from the objective reality of the monergistic covenant .
  7. Jeff_Bartel

    Jeff_Bartel Puritan Board Graduate


    Romans 8:28 must be for the regenerate, for they are the only ones who can "love God."

    John Gill on the passage:

  8. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    No, to go over the ground that we have before, there is a big difference between having a wrong view of the true God, and not believing in the true God at all.

    Mormans and JWs believe that Jesus is not God at all, but rather a created being. There is no way that you can get the gospel from that.

    One can be saved before coming to a complete understanding of the doctrines of grace; one cannot be saved by hearing the Morman or JW message.

  9. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    So then, we reformed should advocate anything that comes out of the heretics mouth as long as it is word for word from the bible?
  10. ANT

    ANT Puritan Board Junior

    I do make that distinction, I just also wanted to show that God uses all in the life of the elect (before and after their distinction in time of their salvation) for their good and for His purposes.

    God shows us mercy even when we do not deserve it ... especially in the case of the elect person who is not yet brought unto salvation in Christ.
  11. ANT

    ANT Puritan Board Junior

    I did not say that!

    I said that ...
    (His Words)
    I did not say to advocate the heretic. I simply said that when God's Word is spoken ... It accomplishes what God wants it to.

    We all know that it hardens some and (through the Holy Spirit) brings others life.

    [Edited on 3-16-2006 by ANT]
  12. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    That may be true to a degree, however, that does not make us less the enemy. Care to define what the apostle meant when he used the term 'enemy'?

    James aligns it with:

    Jam 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

    2nd Thes clearly defines the difference and makes the distinction:

    2Th 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

    There's a difference; it cannot be both, enemy and friend!
  13. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Reread what I wrote. I never said 'advocate the heretic; I said that I agree that Gods word will accomplish that which it was destined to accomplish; what we are talking about, and what I said to you earlier is that, based upon that then, as long as (even) the heretics preach word for word form the bible or portions of what they say or write, as long as it is orthodox, we should advocate that portion? No. we should'nt advocate any of it as it is from a illicit well..........
  14. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    :D I have never met an Arminian. Their theology is deficient and borders upon semi-Pelagianism and Arminian theology.
  15. Bladestunner316

    Bladestunner316 Puritan Board Doctor

    There is no such thing as an Arminian everyone is a calvinist at heart:)
  16. jenson75

    jenson75 Puritan Board Freshman

    You have never met an Arminian? Really? Wow!

    [Edited on 3-16-2006 by jenson75]
  17. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    I have never met anyone who has said that they have met an Arminian. :banana:

    Calvinism is based upon certain ideas. As far as I am concerned, one cannot be a 4 point Calvinist. All 5 points rest, one upon the other. In the same way, I have never met anyone whom held to that which the Remonstrants prescribed.
  18. Jeff_Bartel

    Jeff_Bartel Puritan Board Graduate

    Scott...with all due respect, then you don't get out much.

    The Remonstrance were essentially what we would call "4-point" Arminians. They left perserverance open. They did not decide one way or the other on if a person could lose their salvation or not. Yet Dort condemned them.

    There are a multitude of Arminians today, and many (if not most!) do not only fully embrace Arminianism, but border on Pelagianism.

    The gospel presented is the same as the gospel of Arminius. It does no good to pretend they don't exist, because they do.
  19. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    You already told me that last time we discussed this stuff. :lol:

  20. Jeff_Bartel

    Jeff_Bartel Puritan Board Graduate

  21. Craig

    Craig Puritan Board Senior

    I find many arminians are only arminian when it comes to hashing out doctrine with precision...that's what gets them in trouble.

    While Cameron may be arminian, his presentation of the gospel is more complete than mainstream evangelicalism: he actually believes the Law does what it was designed to do...bring repentance unto faith. Whether he clearly understands their relation and that God saves monergistically...well, he doesn't have to say monergism. He only needs to mention our guiltiness before God and the true remedy.

    Beyond that, he may be deficient...but if repentance, faith, and imputation are part of his gospel, then I believe that is gospel.

    Cameron is a breath of fresh air for "celebrity conversions". He hasn't been shy about the offensiveness of the cross, to my knowledge.
  22. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Here's the problem with the above; where do we draw the line? If you make ammends for him, why not Copeland and Hinn? This door has a sign on it that says 'relativism'. Once opened, there is no return. It cannot be both ways.
  23. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    I pretty much agreed with everything I read on that website. Misplaced emphasis on somethings perhaps and said without 100% calvinisitic precision but nothing I could really disagree with outright. Am I an Arminian?
  24. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member


    I find it interesting that you are disagreeing with Fred and others here who want to temper the very harsh criticisms. I'm uncertain what you're railing against.

    In the heated thread: "Is the Arminian God worshippable", I felt we were generally on the same side giving Matt the benefit of the doubt that he was talking about a full orbed embrace of non-Christian doctrines. You preserved the idea that Churches and individuals, though tainted with the poison of some of the doctrines of Arminius, could still be saved and the Gospel could go forth, by God's grace, in spite of the way they tend to undermine it at times. Maybe I misunderstood.

    While recognizing the cancerous influence of certain Arminian assumptions, I think most people, like Cameron and Comfort, aren't really consistent enough in their embrace of the concepts to completely pollute the Word of God when they talk about it. Calvary Chapel people, for all the other ways that they endanger the Gospel, can still present the Gospel message. Not everybody always qualifies salvific messages with " your own free will...."

    I just find the comparisons of the two individuals to JW's and Mormons to be unfair. Whether they trust savingly in Christ is not for us to know to the point that we can say they are not Brothers. That they dabble in dangerous doctrines that undermine the Gospel even as they try to proclaim it is indisputable. That they ought to turn aside from those dangerous doctrines is also indisputable. That the Gospel goes forward in spite of some folly is something we ought to rejoice in.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by SemperFideles]
  25. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Phrase it another way: how much calvinism does one have ot believe to be saved?
  26. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    In the thread you cite, I was holding to the obvious, that being that men are being saved in those venues; I will add, men are being saved in the Mormon church, and JW churches as well. However, I was NOT advocating their presentation of their erred gospel messages. The reformed should NOT advocate and perpetuate their error by publicly supporting nor suggesting.

    Rich, as well, an erred gospel is bad, period! It is not half bad, or sort of bad, it is just plain bad!

    Having said that, I am not happy, nor would I suggest, nor applaud the idea that Cameron and Comfort are being interviewed.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
  27. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Jacob, thats off point and not what I am fighting for. The issue is not whom is saved, but the gospel and how it is delivered; and by whom.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
  28. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Thanks for your thoughts. here's the thing; Living Waters holds to a synergistic gospel;hence, their Christ is not the Christ opf the scriptures. Shoud we, the reformed, advocate what they do? If wre do, where is the line drawn? We will have to take the idea to it's farthest conclussion and as well give Hinn, Copeland, and Rome the kudos. this fact is unavoidable. It cannot be both ways. They are either correct or they are not.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
  29. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member


    I guess we're just on different pages. I would never attend a Mormon Church if it was the only Church in Okinawa.

    I attend a Southern Baptist Church now with some decidedly Arminian tendencies and people that need better instruction. I do so because the option would be worshipping at home. I consider the people at this Church brothers and sisters in Christ and NOT cult leaders. I consider them starving sheep that I pity greatly. You should see their eyes light up when I explain the Gospel to them untainted by all the Arminian doctrines that keep pulling them back down. I love these Brethren and worship there in spite of the fact that SOME of the preaching is awful.

    I've thought about leaving but my goodness there are some poor, and I mean POOR, people that show a reliance on Christ that shames me. I told one, after much wrestling, that I was going to be sticking around and her eyes lit up: "Oh good Rich-san. I am so glad. You teach the Bible so good." That woman has been shunned by her family for SIX DECADES for claiming Christ as her Savior. I'm sorry but this is bringing tears to my eyes as I think about it. She is so poor, and many like her, suffer not only for their faith before their Japanese families but they also have a lack of spiritual nourishment. I know God has been faithful to them because their faith is preserved because of His faithfulness to keep even their Shepherds from embracing Arminianism too much. Anything I can do, in the short time I have here, to open up the Word and teach them is the least I can do.

    We're on the same page, I suppose, that Arminianism is harmful. That I can agree with. What I cannot abide is saying that the dear Saints at my Church are to be compared to any synagoge of Satan.
  30. Jeff_Bartel

    Jeff_Bartel Puritan Board Graduate

    Let the WLC answer for you:

    According to Question 72, one MUST believe in total depravity. No ifs, no buts...

    The confession also notes that a person must believe in solus christus.

    Arminianism is antithetical to the Westminster Divines summery of what scripture teaches about saving faith because it denies the total depravity of man and asserts that man can (with Christ's help) save himself.

    This is how biblical one must be in order to be saved.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page