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

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.
 

Arch2k

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...

"Dear God, today I turn from all my sins (name them), and I put my trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Please forgive me, and grant me your gift of everlasting life. Amen."
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:

Today, with all your heart"”turn away from sin, and surrender your life to Jesus Christ. Please don´t put it off till later. You may die today and then it will be too late.
But if you don't!!!

If you've decided to reject the gift of forgiveness and you die in your sins, there is no hope for you.
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?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by joshua
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
The Christ that's in the Scriptures that is preached (whether the Arminians realize it or not) is the Christ that God preaches through the hearing or reading of His Word. If they preach man's ineptitude before God (by the Law), Christ's sacrificial, substitutionary atonement for the sins of those who believe (John 3:16), by responding in faith and repentance, trusting in Christ alone, then they are preaching the Gospel (whether they realize it or not). Yes, they may say, "Well you need to step out in faith." "Aha! A Work! Salvation by works!" But people must step out in faith. Yet we know they will only do so by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Some of what Comfort and Cameraon may say might be tainted (for example, the courtroom illustration that Christ paid the price for EVERY one's sin, or this or that), but as humans, we all have tainted talk, yet God rises above our foolishness and does not allow His Word to return unto Himself void. Maybe I'm just severely missing something. Do you want Comfort and Cameron on ABC talkin about Ten Commandments and salvation of sinners, or something else? What I'm asking is this (sincerely): Are you saying it's more hurtful for them to be on ABC than helpful?
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?".
 

ANT

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
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?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by ANT
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
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?
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.
 

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 .
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Ant,

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

John Gill on the passage:


That love God;
a character, which does not agree with all the sons and daughters of Adam: love to God is not naturally in men; it is wrought in the soul in regeneration, and is an evidence of it; it grows up with faith, which works by it; without it, a profession of religion is vain; and where it is once wrought, it lasts for ever; it ought to be superlative and universal, constant, warm and ardent, hearty and sincere: such who have it, show it by a desire to be like to God, and therefore imitate him, by making his glory the supreme end of their actions; by being careful not to offend him; by delighting in his presence, in his people, word, ordinances, ways, and worship; and by undervaluing the world, and all things in it, in comparison of him; who is to be loved for the perfections of his being, the characters and relations he stands in and bears to his people, and on account of the love with which he has loved them, and which is indeed the spring and source of theirs. They are further described, as such

who are the called according to his purpose:
The called of God and of Jesus Christ; not to any office, or by the external ministry of the word only, but by special grace; from darkness to light, from bondage to liberty, from the company of sinful men to fellowship with Christ, from a trust in their own righteousness to a dependence on his, to grace here, and glory hereafter; which is done according to the purpose of God: the persons called are fixed upon by God; none are called but whom God purposed to call; those who are called can assign no other reason of it than the will of God; and no other reason but that can be given why others are not called; the time when, the place where, the means whereby persons are called, are all settled and determined by the will, and according to the purpose of God.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
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?
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.

Affectionately,
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by ANT
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.
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?
 

ANT

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by ANT
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
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?
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.
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.
 

ANT

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by ANT
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.
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?
I did not say that!

I said that ...
God sends them out for a reason,
(His Words)
a purpose, to accomplish what He wants to accomplish ... no matter who is speaking them.
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]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by ANT
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by ANT
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by ANT
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by ANT
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.
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?
I did not say that!

I said that ...
God sends them out for a reason,
(His Words)
a purpose, to accomplish what He wants to accomplish ... no matter who is speaking them.
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]
Anthony,
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..........
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by joshua
So, are Comfort and Cameron "Textbook" Arminians?
:D I have never met an Arminian. Their theology is deficient and borders upon semi-Pelagianism and Arminian theology.
 

jenson75

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by joshua
So, are Comfort and Cameron "Textbook" Arminians?
:D I have never met an Arminian. Their theology is deficient and borders upon semi-Pelagianism and Arminian theology.


You have never met an Arminian? Really? Wow!

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by jenson75]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by jenson75
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by joshua
So, are Comfort and Cameron "Textbook" Arminians?
:D I have never met an Arminian. Their theology is deficient and borders upon semi-Pelagianism and Arminian theology.


You have never met an Arminian? Really? Wow!
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.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
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.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Scott...with all due respect, then you don't get out much.
You already told me that last time we discussed this stuff. :lol:

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.
Ok:book2:
 

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.
 

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.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I totally disagree with you guys; Their gospel is Arminian to the core, as well as synergistic.

http://www.livingwaters.com/good/022.shtml
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?
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Scott,

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 "...by 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]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Rich,
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]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Phrase it another way: how much calvinism does one have ot believe to be saved?
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]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Peter
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I totally disagree with you guys; Their gospel is Arminian to the core, as well as synergistic.

http://www.livingwaters.com/good/022.shtml
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?
Peter,
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]
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Scott,

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.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Phrase it another way: how much calvinism does one have ot believe to be saved?
Let the WLC answer for you:

Q72: What is justifying faith?
A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]

1. Heb. 10:39
2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
3. Rom. 10:14, 17
4. Acts 2:37; 4:12; 16:30; John 16:8-9; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1
5. Eph. 1:13
6. John 1:12; Acts 10:43; 16:31
7. Phil. 3:9; Acts 15:11
According to Question 72, one MUST believe in total depravity. No ifs, no buts...

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIV
Of Saving Faith
II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein;[5] and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. [9]

5. II Peter 1:20-21; John 4:42; I Thess. 2:13; I John 5:9-10; Acts 24:14
6. Psa. 119:10-11, 48, 97-98, 167-168; John 14:15
7. Ezra 9:4; Isa. 66:2; Heb. 4:1
8. Heb. 11:13; I Tim. 4:8
9. John 1:12; Acts 15:11, 16:31; Gal. 2:20; II Tim. 1:9-10
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top