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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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????
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?

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
How is the Catholic gospel any different than the modern Arminian gospel?

I thought the Catholics were considered Arminians (they're just more consistent ;) )
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]
Chris,
C'mon. You know what I mean; in the context of what I have been saying, it is not vague. Here, hows this: I would endorse Fred greco, I would not endorse Warren. I would endorse Chris Blum, I would not endorse CC. I would endorse PB, not TBN and Comfort. I would endorse Mcmahon, not Geisler. I would endorse Calvin, not Westley.
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Chris,
C'mon. You know what I mean; in the context of what I have been saying, it is not vague. Here, hows this: I would endorse Fred greco, I would not endorse Warren. I would endorse Chris Blum, I would not endorse CC. I would endorse PB, not TBN and Comfort. I would endorse Mcmahon, not Geisler. I would endorse Calvin, not Westley.
It seems like we may have to agree to disagree here, since, while I would not tell unbelievers or new believers to look to any of the latter you mentioned for sound advice on much of Christian doctrine and living, I still could not in good conscience tell them to not not listen to their message altogether, as Christ can still be savingly heard by believing their message in full.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
How is the Catholic gospel any different than the modern Arminian gospel?

I thought the Catholics were considered Arminians (they're just more consistent ;) )
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.
I agree. The fact is that the RC's are exactly the same, only more consistent that "evangelical arminians" (although I do not like to use that term). Think about this: If Christ's death does not actually save anyone (i.e. he does not effectually propitiate for ALL of your sins) then it takes continual re-sacrifice. I know plenty of Arminians that believe that if you die before you confess every single sin, you can go to hell. This is because they believe that their confession earns them heaven, in the exact same manner RC's believe the continual re-sacrifice of their "cheese-us" earns them salvation.

The point is fundamentally the same. Christ's once for all death is not enough for either the RC's or the Arminians...they both need to add to this. The only difference is how they choose to add. One is clearer, the other more deceptive.

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
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?
I would no sooner have Cameron or the Pope. Both will tell you exactly what you can do for God.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Josh,

In my post to you, I was not trying to suggest that you did not affirm those things, but trying to flush out the logical conclusions of being a Calvinist.

It is true that if a person believes, they MUST have been regenerated by God. But it is still my contention, that Arminians do not believe the same gospel we do. Theirs is one of works (making their own will their savior) and the true gospel is one of grace (God effectually saving...and hence HE is the savior).

Our faith must be in Christ alone lest we perish.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Chris,
C'mon. You know what I mean; in the context of what I have been saying, it is not vague. Here, hows this: I would endorse Fred greco, I would not endorse Warren. I would endorse Chris Blum, I would not endorse CC. I would endorse PB, not TBN and Comfort. I would endorse Mcmahon, not Geisler. I would endorse Calvin, not Westley.
It seems like we may have to agree to disagree here, since, while I would not tell unbelievers or new believers to look to any of the latter you mentioned for sound advice on much of Christian doctrine and living, I still could not in good conscience tell them to not not listen to their message altogether, as Christ can still be savingly heard by believing their message in full.
I'm good with that. However, it will pigeon-hole you ultimately because you must remain consistant with the premise. Hence, you could not as well, in good conscience, tell anyone to not listen to Warren, CC, Graham, Geisler and Hunt.

And for the record, N. Geisler calls the God of Calvinism a 'divine rapist'. Why would you want to endorse such things as this?

I have no problem telling people to avoid that stuff. There is far too much healthier stuff out there to prescribe.


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

Will

Inactive User
Matthew 25:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father.....For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me......"

There appear to be many people in the Salvation Army that seem to focus much more on helping people than on studying theology. Worse, many of these people seem to be Armenian.

Are these people doomed for damnation?

Can a person with a sincere desire to help people be doomed because they are a 4 point Calvinist?

Is it better to be a unloving Calvinist or a loving Armenian in the eyes of God?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Will
Matthew 25:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father.....For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me......"

There appear to be many people in the Salvation Army that seem to focus much more on helping people than on studying theology. Worse, many of these people seem to be Armenian.

Are these people doomed for damnation?

Can a person with a sincere desire to help people be doomed because they are a 4 point Calvinist?

Is it better to be a unloving Calvinist or a loving Armenian in the eyes of God?
Please define 'loving' or biblical love. When I correct my two year old with the rod is that unloving? Or when God chastens a saint and the saint is put to 'sleep'; is that unloving? Was what happened to Job unloving?

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

I seem to believe that most equate truth with being unloving???

As far as the salvation army goes, they are as apostate as apostate goes. They have little to do with Christ. As well, if we are weighed along the lines of works, then Christ died in vain and the Jehovahs Witnesses have a hands up on all of us!.

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 

Will

Inactive User
Scott,

Are you saying that the Salvation Army is not Christian?

I have never heard this charge. I disagree with this group over Calvinist issues, however, I never thought they were unChristian.

Am I interpreting you correctly, Scott?
 

Will

Inactive User
Scott,

I have a second question if you do not mind.

By applying "the rod" are you suggesting that you would strike your 2 year old with a wooden stick in such a way as to cause pain and bruises?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Will
Scott,

Are you saying that the Salvation Army is not Christian?

I have never heard this charge. I disagree with this group over Calvinist issues, however, I never thought they were unChristian.

Am I interpreting you correctly, Scott?
They are Arminian and ecumentical w/ relationship w/ Rome. Do some research and you will see. They have woman preachers, do not believe in the need for the sacraments (even though they have church services), give moneys to homosexual groups.

http://www1.salvationarmy.org.uk/uk...C28E39B2CA06E8F98025708A003D9FAC?openDocument

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Will
Scott,

I have a second question if you do not mind.

By applying "the rod" are you suggesting that you would strike your 2 year old with a wooden stick in such a way as to cause pain and bruises?
I do what God has commanded..........
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by Will
Scott,

I have a second question if you do not mind.

By applying "the rod" are you suggesting that you would strike your 2 year old with a wooden stick in such a way as to cause pain and bruises?
I do what God has commanded..........

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. " (Proverbs 23:13)
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
A confused gospel the Arminian gospel is. Confused on the point of exactly who is the savior...Christ or man.
Hogwash. Arminians believe Christ is the only savior. I used to be an Arminian and I never thought I could save myself.

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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.
That's funny, my Bible say that there ARE conditions man has to meet to be saved. No matter what Jesus did on the cross, you cannot be saved unless YOU believe, repent, etc.

Now, if I were to just stop there, I'd be a full-fledged Arminian. And yet everything I just said, as far as it goes, is correct.

However, there is *additional* knowledge needed to better understand salvation. That *additional* knowledge is that God gives me my faith as a gift, He causes me to believe, and He grants me repentence.

This is all very important theology. But it is not required for salvation. It never was, and it never will be.



Ironically, you are the one adding to the Gospel, not the Arminians. You don't believe faith in Christ's death is enough to be saved. You believe that you need faith in Christ PLUS a theological understanding of where repentance comes from, where belief comes from, etc.

To be saved, you need to believe that Christ's death pays the penalty for your sins and purchases your entry into Heaven.

To be saved, you do NOT need to know that His death also purchased your very belief & repentance itself.


I am a Calvinist. You are talking like a hyper-Calvinist. There is a difference between the two.

You are adding to the Gospel, Jeff. Please stop that.



[Edited on 3-18-2006 by biblelighthouse]
 

Will

Inactive User
Scott,

I am a relatively new Christian.

I apply the Bible to mean that "the rod" is something that comforts, protects and guides sheep as in "thy rod and staff comfort me."

I got into a discussion once about someone who applied the Bible in such as to suggest that "the rod" is to discipline (or strike) a child in such a way as to cause bruising and pain. I can not find the Biblical backup for this.

In some states I believe spanking a child with a rod is illegal. We are obliged to obey the law of land. If the Govenor says no spanking, then that means we should not spank, doesn't it.
 

Will

Inactive User
Joseph,

Yes, but when you "beatest" your child there would only be the embarrassment of a spanking right. There would not be pain or bruising. I believe that would be illegal in some states. I think in California spanking with "rods" is illegal.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Will

I apply the Bible to mean that "the rod" is something that comforts, protects and guides sheep as in "thy rod and staff comfort me."

I got into a discussion once about someone who applied the Bible in such as to suggest that "the rod" is to discipline (or strike) a child in such a way as to cause bruising and pain. I can not find the Biblical backup for this.
Will,

Scripture states: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

Notice here that the rod is something used to beat the child, not tenderly woo him. Pain is inflicted. This is very Biblical.

As someone once told me: "Don't slap your children in the face; God has prepared a better place . . ."


Originally posted by Will

In some states I believe spanking a child with a rod is illegal. We are obliged to obey the law of land. If the Govenor says no spanking, then that means we should not spank, doesn't it.

No, that is incorrect. You obey the government as far as you can *Biblically*. But whenever the government commands you to disobey Scripture, then you are Biblically *required* to disobey the government. You must obey God, not man.

Parents who do not spank their children hate their children (cf. Proverbs 13:24).

This is also an important verse:
"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15).

:book2:
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Will
Joseph,

Yes, but when you "beatest" your child there would only be the embarrassment of a spanking right. There would not be pain or bruising.
Will, the Hebrew word for "beatest" here is "nakah ". It is repeatedly used in the Bible in the context of killing people. It's first use is in Genesis 4:15 . . . "lest anyone finding him should kill (nakah) him". It is used again in Genesis 8:21, where God promises that He will not again "smite" (nakah) the earth with a flood, killing everything in sight. The 3rd time the word is used in Scripture is Genesis 14:5, and once again the word nakah is used in the context of smiting people to the point of death.

It is NOT a gentle word! In fact, in the context of the Proverbs passage itself, it is significant that it says, "when you beatest him . . . he will not die." This brings us to an important question:

Why would the author of Proverbs even bring up this point about it not bringing the child to the point of death? If "beatest" just was in reference to a light tap on the hiney, causing no pain, but merely embarrasment, then death wouldn't even be a concern. The point is that the Hebrew word nakah is so stringent and so serious that the Scriptures actually put in a clause to tell us that it *wouldn't* kill our children! The child may scream, and his hiney may feel like he's dying, but God designed that rump with plenty of padding for a reason.

Will, you simply cannot make the Hebrew word nakah mean anything less than a real whipping. Often, the word meant death, so merely using the word to describe a bad beating is actually a *soft* version of using that word.



[Edited on 3-18-2006 by biblelighthouse]
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Joseph,

I take personal offense at your charge that I am adding to the gospel.

I have said it over and over and over and over...belief in Christ alone is the only thing necessary for salvation....Arminians reject it and therefore do not believe the only biblical gospel.

If this is adding to the gospel in your opinion, then I would rethink what you believe the gospel to be.

How many ecumenical synods need to happen before we completely reject the Arminian heresy? :banghead:
 

Scot

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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.
:ditto::amen:
 

Scot

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Will
I got into a discussion once about someone who applied the Bible in such as to suggest that "the rod" is to discipline (or strike) a child in such a way as to cause bruising and pain. I can not find the Biblical backup for this.
"The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly." Proverbs 20:30

Although I don't spank my children with the intention of causing a bruise, it sometimes happens. Scripture says it cleanses away evil.
 

Will

Inactive User
Joseph,

If the government says we are not to inflict physical punishment upon a child, then how can we? Jesus paid taxes and Jesus did not tell the Jews to disobey the Romans.

Many states have laws against brusing or inflicting physical pain upon a child. That means we can not does it not. That would be rebellion against God-appointed authorities.

Now I realize that different states have different laws regarding this. I don't
know about Texas.

I suspect that many states such as California, New York and New Jersey do not allow a parent to "discipline" a child with physical force causing pain.
 

Scot

Puritan Board Sophomore
Will,

If our government made a law that stated we could not have anymore than 2 children per family and started enforcing abortion as birth control, should we as christians go along with it? Should we always obey the government even when it goes against the clear teaching of scripture?
 

Will

Inactive User
Dan,

I see your point, however those two examples are generally only found in really evil regimes like Nazism. Many states in the U.S. have anti-corporal punishment laws for more loving reasons.
 

Scot

Puritan Board Sophomore
Will,

As Joseph pointed out above, those that don't use the rod hate their children.

Proverbs 13:24 says "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Godly parents spank their children because they understand the awfulness of sin and the holiness of God. They do it out of love for their children and obedience to God. Society may frown upon it and try to say it's unloving but what does God say?

This article may be helpful:
http://www.rsglh.org/rod_and_reproof.htm

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scot]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Previously posted by jenson75

Originally posted by houseparent
Originally posted by jenson75
Originally posted by houseparent
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?
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...
I'm not certain what it is you are teaching them....

Bible lessons based on Lessons for Life by Mrs. Jill Masters (my Pastor's wife)... highly recommended for Sunday School work. You can find it here - http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/products.asp?category=Sunday+School&subcategory=Lesson+Notes

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 

john_Mark

Puritan Board Freshman
A few questions.

Where any of us Christians prior to becoming Reformed?

Are Cameron and Comfort on their way to hell?

If one were in a public gathering preaching to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit of God" would that lack the presentation of the Gospel?

From a cursory reading of this thread it seems those opposed to Cameron/Comfort would answer no, yes and no respectively. Though I could be wrong.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by john_Mark
A few questions.

Where any of us Christians prior to becoming Reformed?

Are Cameron and Comfort on their way to hell?

If one were in a public gathering preaching to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit of God" would that lack the presentation of the Gospel?

From a cursory reading of this thread it seems those opposed to Cameron/Comfort would answer no, yes and no respectively. Though I could be wrong.
John-Mark,
The Jehovahs Witnesses do that; are they correct.

We are not questioning Cameron and Comforts position in Christ, but their message, which is Arminian. Should we the reformed endorse it when there are much better choices to endorse.

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top