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. jenson75

    jenson75 Puritan Board Freshman

    I would appreciate if you had asked me first, before moving it elsewhere.

    You have described a set of truth, attached the proof texts, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Very nice. By openly criticising Arminians, Kirk and Ray, etc., you are opening yourself to those who will scrutinise you... very carefully.
    Calvinists, Arminians and even unbelievers will do that, too. Pity I cannot be there personally to meet you face to face and see if your brand of Calvinism is something I would like to believe.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by jenson75]
  2. ReformedWretch

    ReformedWretch Puritan Board Doctor

    That's why I simply asked you one question.

    Do you equate drinking a beer, smoking a cigar, or watching a fight to presenting the gospel incorrectly or even falsely?
  3. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    Scott, glad to hear you acknowledge many have been converted under K.Cameron and other crypto-Arminian teachings. I'm not sure what you mean by saying we should not "endorse" them but as I said before, we should have no Church Communion with brothers who do not walk after the traditions we have received2Th 3:6. This is not because they are not Christians but b/c they are sectarians. It is unfair to compare them to JWs who openly deny the fundamentals of the faith. Arminianism is not another Gospel. They may have the superstructures of the Gospel wrong but the foundation is there:

    Another foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, Jesus Christ. 1 Cor 3:11
  4. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    The concept of moving threads is left to the discretion of the administration of this board. It would be silly to ask your permission. Tons of threads are erroneously placed and need to be moved. Thats one of our functions here. I pray you understand.

    You mention scrutiny. Is my life perfect? By far it is not. Is God sanctifying me, yes. Was Peter above scrutiny? No. Did he possess a level of hypocrisy? yes. Did the world see that? Yes. Hoding to the doctrines of grace is by Gods mercy alone. He has been gracious with me and I am thankful. This is besides the point when it comes to false teachers and false gospel messages. I am not one whom holds to relativism. Am I less than gracious when it comes to these people whom are in error; no less than Ezekiel or Jeremiah was. No less than Paul was. How might I be more middle of the road with my critiques? Smile more? Be more complacent? Be relative? Inclusive? One thing I know, the church is filled with poorly taught people. This is because people are preaching that should not be preaching. men are literally ordaining themselves to the ministry. No schooling. No theology. They go to their pastor and say, God has called me to start a church in Boise, Idaho. bang, they are ordained. This is not good and a large part of the problem. And what are these people teaching? mainline teachings; word of faith, Arminianism, hyper charismania! These three groups hold 3/4 of people that attend church. Look for yourself. The largest churches in America are charismatic; some even tout membership of 40,000 people, i.e. Willow Creek/Bill Hybels. I don't believe complacency or smiling a lot will help. I do believe that papers like Matts are what the world needs to hear. No soft shoe, just truth.
  5. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    HOLD THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!

    Am I hearing you? Arminianism is not another Gospel?
  6. jenson75

    jenson75 Puritan Board Freshman

    Sorry, I did not think you were asking me a question...

    This is a big digression.

    Put it this way, I teach Sunday School. I tell children about sin and their need for repentance and faith in Christ. If I step out of the class, and play football, drink, smoke and watch a fight.... and the boys see me doing all that, what kind of a testimony is that??? They will laugh, and so would their unbelieving parents as well...

    My problem is not about Arminianism vs Calvinism. I would like to see those who profess Doctrines of Grace to practice it...
  7. ReformedWretch

    ReformedWretch Puritan Board Doctor


    The question is this (at least for me), is presenting the Arminian mesage presenting the true gospel? If it completely up to me to decide if I am saved or not is that the true gospel? If it is not, yet it is not a flase gospel, what would you call it? A confused gospel? I know I am certainly confused.
  8. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner is having a pint or a smoke not holding to the d o gs?
  9. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    Scott, did you say there are Arminians who are saved? How can they be saved if they do not believe the gospel?
  10. ReformedWretch

    ReformedWretch Puritan Board Doctor

    I'm not certain what it is you are teaching them....
  11. CDM

    CDM Puritan Board Junior

  12. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    The Jesus of the Arminian gospel cannot even hold his own people from falling away; This is not the Christ of the scriptures!
  13. CDM

    CDM Puritan Board Junior

    (sorry for the Dittos) ;)
  14. jenson75

    jenson75 Puritan Board Freshman

    I absolutely agree that Christians need to be taught. It is not the "why", but the "how" that I am concerned.

    I need to correct you about something - a theological education, no matter how important it is, does not make a man a good pastor. I know of an "evangelical" theological college here in London that churns out men (in the bus loads, with PhDs) that needs to be in pews, not in pulpits.

    As to your final point(s), like it or not, your message must be consistent with your life... That is all I am going to say about this...
  15. ReformedWretch

    ReformedWretch Puritan Board Doctor

    What is it about a beer, a cigar, and a UFC match that makes your life inconsistent with the message of the gospel? Maybe those things are not consistent with the Arminian gospel and that's where the confusion is coming from?
  16. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    I agree.
  17. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Thank you.
  18. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    Good post. I think that is what I would call it; a "confused gospel". Or the Gospel plus an unhealthy mixture of confusion and error. Even the Papists have the Gospel even if it is smuthered under superstition and idolatry. The question is really what knowledge is necessary for salvation. I'm going to have to do some study and prayer to form a clear opinion on this.
  19. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    The question is how much error reduces the gospel to no gospel?

    When one goes through each point of contention in a clinical Arminian gospel message, it is not the biblical account. Arminianism is heresy; the Remonstrants were heretics! Todays ilk is not the remonstrant type; I would agree. But where do you draw the line? If you asked Hinn or Copeland if they believed in Justification by faith alone, they would agree. If you asked them if men must repent, they would agree. If you asked them if Christ only saves; they would agree. The difference is embedded. Just like the errors being perpetuated today. It is even more insidious and viral. So, as far as confusion goes, whose to say Hinn, et. al. aren't as well confused then?

    Reformed folk should not advocate, endorse or suggest any of it.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
  20. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    If people like Geisler, Hunt, Wilkerson and Warren (I hesitate to include Graham since he has advocated strong Inclusivism even of other religions, Meyer because she has Word of Faith teachings, and Stanley simply because I am not familiar with his beliefs or teachings) were in the same position now that Cameron is in, I would 1) make it clear that I believe much of their theology to be unbiblical and compromising of God's full biblical truth regarding the Gospel and the process of salvation. But I would also 2) make it clear that I encourage people to listen and respond to their call to repent and believe in Christ, and affirm that they are doing a good thing as far as that goes.

    Why would I do #2 with men like them but not with Mormons, Roman Catholics and Word of Faith teachers? Peter made the point well:

    People who truly and fully believe what Cameron is teaching can be saved (and I fully agree with Matt's recent paper on Arminianism, but you even acknowledged that the teaching of men like Cameron is not at the level of Remonstrance teaching), while people who truly and fully believe everything Mormons, Roman Catholics or Word of Faith teachers proclaim cannot be saved. The former teaches that we are hopeless in sin, that faith alone in Christ's sacrifice is the only thing that can save us from it, and even that repentance is a necessary component of that faith - whereas the latter groups do not preach that message. That is where I draw the line, and that is the basis on which I believe a line can in fact be principally drawn between men like Cameron and men like Kenneth Hagin or Joseph Smith. And in light of that, I still ask where a similar line could possibly be principally drawn between the issues of monergism and synergism (and that of perseverance), and the issues of infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism (since the latter issues necessarily contain false claims about God's redemption just as the former do)?
  21. Jeff_Bartel

    Jeff_Bartel Puritan Board Graduate

    A confused gospel the Arminian gospel is. Confused on the point of exactly who is the savior...Christ or man.

    If 100% Christ...then the biblical gospel (the only gospel) and hence a person is saved.

    If 1% Man...then a false gospel and one worthy of damnation forever. To add one work to the work of Christ makes the CoG the CoW and makes man the savior, not Christ.

    How can the latter in ANY fashion be considered the true gospel? :banghead:
  22. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Thank you; and hence, we should not endorse it. Let sleeping dogs lie.

    As well, I want to again state, we are not talking about any personal salvations here. What I am 'railing' against is the reformed position and our endorsement of these erring camps. let them endorse themselves on TBN. As for us, let us tell them to read Owen, Calvin et. al. for truth.

    May it never be mentioned that we elbowed up to the error that could come back to bite us in the end.

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

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    But why climb out on that dry limb? Just don't suggest stuff like that!

    But the gospel that you are defending is not the gospel that they are touting. It is synergistic. Man, then God, and that element is unavoidable in their presentations. I have seen them. I have actually been out w/ Ray while I lived in California. Granted, what they do is better than most, but better than most does not the gospel make. Error is error.

    God saves even in RC churches. I understand this. He uses His means and His word and the person leaves the illicit situation. However, that does not condone an erred attempt at truth.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Scott Bushey]
  24. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

    What I'm saying is that synergism alone does not void one's salvific knowledge of Christ and the Gospel. Again, if error is error, and a denial of full monergism or perseverance is alone enough to damn, then why does the infra/supra debate not hold the same stakes, since it too is an issue regarding God's plan of redemption and just how He goes about redeeming people, and what part man's actions play in that process Mind you, I am not saying that the wrong side in the latter debate is anywhere near as great an error and deviation as is synergism - but I am saying that neither of them are so great an error in and of themselves to void the saving knowledge of Christ, and thus damn.

    I know we both agree that God can save people under both synergistic teaching of the Word and Roman Catholic teaching of the Word. We also both agree that with the Catholic teaching, a person can only be saved if that person does not truly believe the whole message, but only the true part. But what I'm saying about mere synergistic teaching (or even just a teaching that denies, say, perseverance) is that one can be saved if that person truly believes it in full, since the error it contains is not by itself damnable as is the error in the Catholic message.
  25. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Again, I am encouraging the reformed to not endorse the stuff. Why would you say anything positive about it when there are better things to hang your hat on. Do you want to be held responsible for the people whom hear the error and subscribe to it?

    Why is this so difficult???? :banghead:

    I'll add, if Rick warren was on or Joel Osteen, would you suggest them as well? No? Why, because they are in more error? How much more is Warren in error? See what I'm getting at. lets just not suggest or endorse junk like that!

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

    Jeff_Bartel Puritan Board Graduate

    How is the Catholic gospel any different than the modern Arminian gospel?

    I thought the Catholics were considered Arminians (they're just more consistent ;) )
  27. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Correct. We are speaking of people whom here the scriptures preached there and leave after hearing and understanding the truth.
  28. Larry Hughes

    Larry Hughes Puritan Board Sophomore

    I think Scott´s and Jeff´s point, which I concur with, is that they are not really preaching Christ. But I don´t mean to put words into mouths if I´m wrong.

    Excerpt from the web site:

    Read that and then think about what that passage says to you. What did you HEAR? Because THAT is the crucial point!

    You see this is chalked full of things "œto do" and confuses saving faith and conceals the Gospel all over the place. The sum total of the idea in this excerpted passage is "œYOU must DO something first." That´s much different than receiving the Good News already GIVEN. It´s in the communication and the difference between Prescription, TO DO, something and Proclamation of something, DONE. It´s very subtle but makes the all difference in the hearers ear, especially the incurable "œdoer" and religious fraud in us all the old Adam.

    Take for example Acts 16:30-31 and the account of the Philippian jailer´s conversion. "œand after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, <<<what must I do>>> to be saved?" They said, "<<<Believe in the Lord Jesus>>>, and you will be saved, you and your household."

    Here we have a Roman guard who in his society who is use to the idea/religion of "œif I sacrifice X to the gods, I will receive good fortune". This is his base thinking. Then suddenly after singing Psalms and praises to their God he sees Paul and his folks stay IN the jail while others ran right after a violent earth quake. He´s frightened and reacts the only way he knows how, he offers "œwhat must I DO" to gain the favor of this God. He´s still in his "œI´ll do for this God to gain favor mode". But Paul´s answer contrary to some who read this is not supporting the jailer´s question/offer, "œ"¦sirs what must I do to be saved", no, rather Paul´s answer is against "œDOING" entirely. For when Paul says, "œBelieve in the Lord Jesus Christ"¦" he is saying, "œYou do nothing, receive freely, without money, without cost, without sacrifice!" Paul´s answer is not supporting a "œdo", faith is not a "œdo" faith is utterly receptive. The jailer says, "œdo", Paul says, "œhear is Christ freely". The "œbelieve" is utterly against the "œdo", not an prescription for it to be filled.

    Faith is the awakening caused by the message itself, it is the vessel CREATED by the proclamation (the Good News). It is the GOSPEL nakedly proclaimed that calls into being faith. Strictly speaking we are not called by or to "œfaith" we are called by and to the Gospel. Faith doesn´t say "œLazarus come forth", the Gospel says, "œLazarus come forth", and he does! Lazarus would still be in the tomb if Comfort´s "œgospel" was hollered out. The Good News is literally the WORD that calls into being, against man´s wisdom which sees nothing existing, AS IF IT IS so that it WILL BE. Wisdom says, "œWhy are you calling to that body its obviously dead and cannot respond". The Gospel says, "œLet there be light" and there IS light by that very Word "“ the dead man rises to the chagrin and shock of everyone. It is the placarding of Christ and Him crucified before the dead man´s eyes, that message, that calls into being that which will receive it. The Holy Spirit works through that means, we merely are the "œbull horns" for the message.

    But in today´s climate if you call a man to, "œYou wouldn´t just "believe" in the parachute; you would put it on" or "œPut on the Lord Jesus Christ" or "œthey have not put on the Savior" or "œwith all your heart" "“ all "œto dos" by the way "“ you have not called Him to Christ at all although your language uses and lingers about the words "œChrist", but not once have you GIVEN the Good News or Christ Himself. Is the Good News this, "œIF I DO XY or Z, THEN I will receive forgiveness?" Or is the Good News this, "œChrist Jesus was CRUCIFIED on a bloody cross for me"? Again it is the difference in Prescribing a subtle work whereby I might falsely rest in, my "œto do", my heaping of this work for myself "“ and sheer Proclamation of the News. We should never forget it is the NEWS that calls not a call to faith that calls. Descriptively proclaiming the Good News is a call to faith, but it is the News doing the calling not a faith doing it. The NEWS causes the faith, faith cannot cause faith.

    Hence, they are not, especially in today´s heavy "œI do" climate, giving Christ but a false Christ"¦albeit a very close copy to the truth. The irony is "“ is that they give a decent Law, have you ever kept the Law"¦, I´ve heard them say. But then they just exchange the 10 Commandments for these ethereal "œto do" faith type commands. Or these monumental, give all your heart commands. If I give all my heart then Jesus will save me? What false doctrine is this! What happen to, "œWhile we were STILL enemies Christ died for the ungodly" and "œI will GIVE you a new heart"?

    It´s been put like this; giving Christ, the Gospel, is like preparing a huge banquette table feast for a starving man and then saying eat. There´s no IF you "œdo", THEN you may eat. If they were to say, I´m starving what must I do to eat, all I say is behold and eat. Strange indeed it would be if they didn´t eat until they satisfied themselves that they couldn´t eat what is freely before them until they "œdid something for me". To one that will not freely eat what is freely given and as he lay starving and dying try to work for what is before him freely without condition, his folly is inexcusable. See how we love our works and war with God´s mercy! See how impossible faith is for the Old Adam, the incurable doer and he must die entirely, yet how free the Gospel really is!

    Grace and peace,

    Larry H.
  29. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Well, it depends on whether or not we all mean the same thing by "endorse," since it is a vague word in this context. I already laid out the senses in which I would and would not "endorse" it. Would you really just as soon have someone talking about global warming on the program as you would have Cameron teaching what he is, and not encourage anyone to listen to the latter any more than the former?

    Because in addition to a mere belief in synergism, the Catholic gospel adds the salvific necessity of Christ being continually re-sacrificed, the salvific necessity of the sacraments and purgatorial cleansing on top of that, and the belief that we only receive Christ's righteousness in the sense that our faith in Him causes us to act righteous, just to name a few minor differences.

    Of course the Catholics are synergists - but that has absolutely no implications for the error of synergism in and of itself, without other baggage attached. Would you no sooner vote to have Cameron on the program than you would Hagin or a Mormon, if given the option?

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Me Died Blue]
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page