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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
I guess we're just on different pages. I would never attend a Mormon Church if it was the only Church in Okinawa.
Neither would I; I am not suggesting that.

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 hear you and understand.

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.
Amen, be diligent!

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.
Rich,
Arminianism isn't harmful, it is deadly. Hold to it and you perish. Only God knows who are His. I am not judging them personally. However, if they preach a synergistic gospel, I will not, as a reformed man, advocate it, suggest it, not give kudos to anyone attached to it.



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

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rich,
Arminianism isn't harmful, it is deadly. Hold to it and you perish. Only God knows who are His. I am not judging them personally. However, if they preach a synergistic gospel, I will not, as a reformed man, advocate it, suggest it, not give kudos to anyone attached to it.
Fair enough. Nevertheless, if you are open to a suggestion, it is beyond hyperbolic to compare all Churches tainted with Arminianism to Mormon and JW Churches. I think you can make the above point without that leap. That so many Churches are under its deadly influence is something that, I believe, grieves us all greatly.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rich,
Arminianism isn't harmful, it is deadly. Hold to it and you perish. Only God knows who are His. I am not judging them personally. However, if they preach a synergistic gospel, I will not, as a reformed man, advocate it, suggest it, not give kudos to anyone attached to it.
Fair enough. Nevertheless, if you are open to a suggestion, it is beyond hyperbolic to compare all Churches tainted with Arminianism to Mormon and JW Churches. I think you can make the above point without that leap. That so many Churches are under its deadly influence is something that, I believe, grieves us all greatly.
Rich,
I hear you loud and clear. However, how is Arminianism any less incidious than what the JW's preach or the Mormons? Error is error, period. In fact, all of these errors, damn.

As far as being grieved, I am past that; I am angry.

Psa 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

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

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
OK, we're grieved and angry. We can be both - Christ, after all, did weep for Jerusalem but got angry at some.

The difference between the two is not the folly of the doctrines, per se, but the membership. I think of Mormon and JW meeting places as synagogues of Satan. I think of Christian Churches as, well, Christian Churches.

It just obscures your main argument to compare Mormon people who might believe the Gospel to people who have been baptized into Christ.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by SemperFideles
OK, we're grieved and angry. We can be both - Christ, after all, did weep for Jerusalem but got angry at some.

The difference between the two is not the folly of the doctrines, per se, but the membership. I think of Mormon and JW meeting places as synagogues of Satan. I think of Christian Churches as, well, Christian Churches.

It just obscures your main argument to compare Mormon people who might believe the Gospel to people who have been baptized into Christ.
Rich,
But this is where you and I disagree. If they hold to an Arminian gospel, they have not been baptized into anything.; just like the Mormons and JW's.

The people I referred to in the other thread are people whom no longer hold to such a doctrine.

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

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
That standard is pretty hard to measure Scott. I'm not saying that I have 100% confidence in the validity of baptisms at all such Churches but neither would I presume to make them be baptized before they joined a Reformed Church. I have heard both a crystal clear Gospel message at my current Church but I've also heard some pure excrement. Which one of those a particular person trusted in, and whether their baptism is valid, is not for me to judge.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
You and I agree that there are believers and unbelievers in the church. Having said that, the baptism may be valid, but whether or not it was into Christ is what I am referring. If they trust in an Arminian gospel, which is synergistic, they remain in their sin. Could they improve thier baptism, sure; abandon the error.

Whatever the case, we are getting off the point. My contention is that as reformed folk, we should not advocate any error. LW, Comfort, Cameron, CC or what have you, if they are erring, we should not stand by it.
 

Pilgrim

Puritan Board Doctor
I've heard at least one Calvinistic SBC pastor say that if you preach what amounts to Calvinism in many churches you get choruses of "amens" until you start using some of the forbidden words. Yet another example of how many hold two or more contradictory ideas within their mind at the same time and also have misconceptions about some things.
 

Scott Shahan

Puritan Board Sophomore
I see and hear what you are saying Scott, Cameron is Preaching a false Gospel. It is very subtle but if one really discerns their message it is a message of error and that error leads the flock astray. Their message masquerades itself as light, but in the end that light leads people into eternal darkness. Satan does his best work within the church, and, like you said not everybody that is talking about Jesus belongs to Jesus. The Apostle Paul warned the church of false phophets teaching false doctrines.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by Pilgrim
I've heard at least one Calvinistic SBC pastor say that if you preach what amounts to Calvinism in many churches you get choruses of "amens" until you start using some of the forbidden words. Yet another example of how many hold two or more contradictory ideas within their mind at the same time and also have misconceptions about some things.
How true.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by houseparent
Just an FYI

You all did notice that I said it would simply be "entertaining" right?
:lol: Yeah but Adam we read between the lines as to why it would be entertaining.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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]
Scott, first of all, I'm saying I've found nothing overtly synergistic at their website. Second, I think you are too hard on so-called Arminians or broad non-calvinistic evangelicalism. Most of these people are not dogmatic 5 (or 4) point Remonstrants but just doctrinally fuzzy and imprecise in their theology. Even if there is some subconscious Arminian admixture they believe in the Bible, they believe in the Creed, they even to an extent believe in the great Reformational attainments. To be sure we should mark and avoid those that walk contrary to the doctrine we have learned and refuse ecclesiastical fellowship those who do not hold to our Confession, but to deny their salvation and even that they are Christian and equate them with JWs and Mormons is overboard.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Peter]
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by joshua
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
LW, Comfort, Cameron, CC or what have you, if they are erring, we should not stand by it.
How can we not err? We are but men. Thank God for His grace which covers all our actions.
Josh,

I understand what you are trying to defend. God's grace is ABOUNDING even to the chief of sinners such as myself. Praise God for his mercy!

However, His saving grace does not happen apart from means, by means of faith in the one, true gospel of Christ and him crucified. To say that God's grace DOES happen apart from these means is to resort to antinomianism. Surely our bad works God makes up for in His grace, but saving faith is altogether a different thing, because God himself is the "author and finisher" of it. It comes from him. He does not fail in this task. If this faith was left up to us, surely it would be deficient, but thanks be to God that He gives it to us.

1Co 4:7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?
It is precisely because this faith comes from God that we know that he will not fail in it.

If God's Word says that saving faith includes faith that is in Christ's merits alone, and none of our own, we should stand up firmly for this truth, believing that God will accomplish what he has promised! We should boldly proclaim the anathemas against any gospel that renounces such truths, yet preaching the truth of the biblical gospel in love with respect.

All to often, people become proud of what they have learned, and it is a travesty on the church that it is so. But seperating saving truth from damning error need not rest in the pride of men, but in the power of God. God has called us to fight a spiritual war on this earth, and he has given us the tools to do so. It is my opinion though, that all too many reformed folk are yelling "peace!" today when in the middle of a universal war.

Jer 6:14 They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly,
Saying, "˜Peace, peace!´
When there is no peace.
The content of a person's faith is really what is the dividing ground in this discussion.

Can we judge a faith that believes salvation is 1% Christ and 95% Man to be from God? How about 50% Christ and 50% Man? How about 99% Christ and 1% Man?

What does scripture tell us?

Rom 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

If a person is working for their salvation (in the very least), God owes him something. God becomes a debtor to this man. The question is, "What did the man earn?" What can any depraved man earn? Hell. That is the only thing that a fallen, sinful human can earn from a holy God.

Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, "œVengeance is Mine, I will repay,"
This is why faith must be in the righteousness of Christ alone, so that it might be according to grace!

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace,
If it is of faith, but turns out to be according to merit, then we can judge the faith to be a false and therefore non-saving faith.

Faith and grace must not be seperated, in the same way works and merit must not be seperated.

Faith in a God that saves:

Some people believe in a God that gets them part of the way, and it is left up to them to finish the job. This God is ineffectual. He is not savior, for even the term "savior" is effectual (one who saves). Faith in a leaky boat may get my hopes up, but it will not get me across the Atlantic. Only faith in a boat that cannot fail will save me.

Some people believe in a God that stands on the sidelines cheerleading for them, but never wins the game on their behalf. Is this the God of my salvation? Salvation is of the Lord. Anything else is nothing more than us trying to play savior. If salvation is left up to us, WE will surely fail...and that is why our trust must be in God alone.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Praise God for the ministries of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

In a time when most "Christian" spokespeople are way out there, these guys are not "way out there."

I differ with them but little, but am proud to call them brothers and not malign the good that they do!


I have been blessed by what I have seen of them. I have only winced a few times at how they have phrased things...but chances are I might wince at a few of you stone-throwers as well if I sat in your churches!
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
Scott, I think the argument that one must accept Mormon, Catholic and Word of Faith teachers to remain truly consistent with accepting ones like Cameron and Comfort is an argument that proves too much, and here's why:

Along those same lines, imagine an infra (or supra) claiming that one who advocates supra (or infra) preaching must take that to its furthest conclusion and accept cultic preaching as well. Ultimately only one side in the infra/supra issue is in fact biblical, and thus the other side has an unbiblical understanding of one of the issues regarding how God saves people - yet you and I would both agree that endorsement of preaching from someone of the other persuasion in that issue does not by logical necessity lead to a path of advocating Mormon or Catholic preaching.

So likewise, since an unbiblical understanding of the order of God's decrees is not enough to warrant a lack of endorsement of the message, why does an unbiblical understanding of the monergistic nature of those decrees happen to be the place at which the line of full disapproval is drawn? The "how far does it go" question goes both ways, for the question of why to approve of supra (or infra) preaching but not synergistic preaching (my question) is just as relevant and demanding of an answer as is the question of why to approve of synergistic preaching but not Mormon or Word of Faith preaching (your question). As Josh, Fred and others have articulated, the reason the cultic messages should not be advocated is that there is no way one can be saved by fully believing them, like Jesus not being God. But if a real misunderstanding of the logical order of regeneration and faith precludes salvation as you say, why does a misunderstanding of the order of decrees not?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Scott, first of all, I'm saying I've found nothing overtly synergistic at their website.
Are you familiar w/ their ministry? I am. They are Arminian and dispensational. Camerion produced a movie w/ TBN on the rapture; Lehaye was as well involved. You want to advocate that stuff?

Second, I think you are too hard on so-called Arminians or broad non-calvinistic evangelicalism.
I didn't see you telling Matt that after he baraged you w/ his most recent paper on Arminianism.


Most of these people are not dogmatic 5 (or 4) point Remonstrants but just doctrinally fuzzy and imprecise in their theology.
If they hold to a false gospel, it is a false gospel. As I have said, it is not a little bad, or sort of bad, it is just oplain bad and for we reformed, we should not perpetuate it, endorse it, suggest it etc.


Even if there is some subconscious Arminian admixture they believe in the Bible, they believe in the Creed
,

What creed? The Apostles creed? They reject that! They attribute that creed w/ Rome and priests. How do I know, I come out of the CC movement.


they even to an extent believe in the great Reformational attainments.
They do. I promise you, 98% do not even know what the word reformation means, never mind the era and what occured historically.


To be sure we should mark and avoid those that walk contrary to the doctrine we have learned and refuse ecclesiastical fellowship those who do not hold to our Confession
,

Please make up your mind Peter.


but to deny their salvation and even that they are Christian and equate them with JWs and Mormons is overboard.
I never denied their salvation or their Christianity; In fact, as Rich has pointed out, I have in the past fought to prove that God saves in those venues by whatever means he chooses. I am simply stating that as the reformed, we should not advocate their error nor perpetuate it by endorsing it.

Arminianism is no better than what the JW's, Mormons or RC's teach; it is a different gospel, a different Jesus. But you have your right to an opinion.


Would you say the same of Geisler or D. Hunt? They are as well elbow to elbow with CC and Cameron/Comfort.

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

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
Scott, I think the argument that one must accept Mormon, Catholic and Word of Faith teachers to remain truly consistent with accepting ones like Cameron and Comfort is an argument that proves too much, and here's why:

Along those same lines, imagine an infra (or supra) claiming that one who advocates supra (or infra) preaching must take that to its furthest conclusion and accept cultic preaching as well. Ultimately only one side in the infra/supra issue is in fact biblical, and thus the other side has an unbiblical understanding of one of the issues regarding how God saves people - yet you and I would both agree that endorsement of preaching from someone of the other persuasion in that issue does not by logical necessity lead to a path of advocating Mormon or Catholic preaching.

So likewise, since an unbiblical understanding of the order of God's decrees is not enough to warrant a lack of endorsement of the message, why does an unbiblical understanding of the monergistic nature of those decrees happen to be the place at which the line of full disapproval is drawn? The "how far does it go" question goes both ways, for the question of why to approve of supra (or infra) preaching but not synergistic preaching (my question) is just as relevant and demanding of an answer as is the question of why to approve of synergistic preaching but not Mormon or Word of Faith preaching (your question). As Josh, Fred and others have articulated, the reason the cultic messages should not be advocated is that there is no way one can be saved by fully believing them, like Jesus not being God. But if a real misunderstanding of the logical order of regeneration and faith precludes salvation as you say, why does a misunderstanding of the order of decrees not?
OK Chris,
Please tell me where we draw the line. Would you endorse CC? Geisler? Hunt? Wilkerson? Lahaye? Warren? Graham? Joyce meyer? Stanley? If these guys were being interviewed, would you advocate them, after all, they are of the same ilk.

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

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
For the record, please keep further posts with the premise that I am against ENDORSING, ADVOCATING or SUGGESTING things like the above. Just like endorsing or suggesting a book, there are better things to suggest and endorse in the cause. Shame on us; we know better.

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

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by houseparent
Scott, is it your opinion that I shouldn't have posted this topic at all?
No. Your premise was intended to disregard such nonsense, which is exactly mine; There are better alternatives to endorse. Next thing you'll see is the reformed endorsing Billy Graham and his televised evenets.

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

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
Yea.

I used to be a big, big living waters fan. Here's the thing though, I can be a pretty emotional guy. By that, I don't mean I cry easily (lol) I mean making an appeal to my emotions can be very successful. I had to learn the difference between the Holy Spirit and my emotional feelings.

Kirk and Ray are very, very, VERY good at appealing to your emotions. In fact, Arminianism (at least today's kind) is very good at this as well. This is why we so often don't see much (if any) fruit from conversions that take place under that kind of preaching. Emotions can drive you but they can't sustain you.

You can do street ministry successfully by appealing to people's emotions. You can draw large crowds by appealing to people's emotions. You can have a large alter call by appealing to people's emotions. I can remember hearing a story by Jerry Lee Lewis time and again about how he fought the "alter call" at his cousin's preaching (Jimmy Swagart). Jerry Lee would say how his knuckles would turn white from gripping the chair in front of him so hard to avoid walking down the aisle. Thing is, he tells this story as if his will is over coming God's!

Play the right music, say the right words, plead just hard and long enough and you can have what looks like great results. Seeds amongst thorns though.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
If we endorse Cameron, are we not by default endorsing Lehaye? Will not this message be sent to the world?
 

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
Sure will so I won't endorse him. I will watch tonight to see how it goes and how they answer tough questions. If anything I suspect they be exposed for not having the simple answers correct theology gives you. We will see...that's why I said it will be entertaining.
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
...I never sent you to preach, why are you preaching...
Can someone point me to this part in Scripture? It sounds familiar, I just can't think of where it is.

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.
Just curious, the Roman Catholics "believe Jesus is God." Can one be saved under this system?

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.
Are not the Church of Christ full, 5 point, Remonstrant Amrinians? I thought the Assemblies of God are too. They believe you can lose your salvation don't they?
 

jenson75

Puritan Board Freshman
Please don't remove my post... I am just being honest...

After all that has been mentioned in this thread, do you expect me to believe that you believe in the doctrines of GRACE?

If you wish to go after the Arminians, please make sure your life is scrupulous. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. Just my two pence....

Put it this way, if there were to be an Arminian here on this board, how will go about "converting" him/her?

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by joshua
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.


[Edited on 3-16-2006 by joshua]
you're so not liberal ;)
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by jenson75
Please don't remove my post... I am just being honest...

After all that has been mentioned in this thread, do you expect me to believe that you believe in the doctrines of GRACE?

If you wish to go after the Arminians, please make sure your life is scrupulous. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. Just my two pence....

Put it this way, if there were to be an Arminian here on this board, how will go about "converting" him/her?

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
For starters, Arminians are excluded from participating on this board. The board requires one hold to the LBC or WCF as confessions. We are not talking of recipients of the message, but the messenger.

Secondly, your post was not removed, it was moved. I moved it because it had to do with Christian liberty.

You previously wrote:

If you want to go after the Arminians, please make sure your lives are scrupulous (I have seen smoking, drinking, bare-knuckled boxing on this board already...). If not, who will take you seriously? Just my 2 pence...
Adam asked:

Are you equating those things with presenting the gospel falsely?
And I inquired:

Are you saying that I can't have a pint, a smoke and wrestle with Matt?

???

And as far as me holding to the D's O G, I don't see how what I have said affects that.

Sidebar>>> Please click on the link at the bottom of my post for signature requirements.


Thank you.

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

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top