Complacent Brian Houston Dances With Wolves

From: http://www.christianpost.com/news/brian-houston-warns-church-leaders-of-complacency-49068/

Brian Houston Warns Church Leaders of Complacency

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

Brian HoustonAfter 34 years in ministry and spending most of that pastoring one church, Brian Houston, founding pastor of Hillsong Church in Sydney, said Friday that he doesn’t want to become complacent and unaware of what God wants to do through him in the future.

Brian Houston, pastor of Hillsong Church in Sydney, spoke at the 2011 C3 Dallas/Fort Worth Conference on Friday, February 18, 2011.

Starting his message from Hebrew 13:12, the passage referring to some people entertaining angels without knowing, Houston urged church leaders at the C3 Conference in Dallas to not live their lives unaware of what God is doing around them.

He pointed to examples in the Bible of people unaware before they became aware. Eli was unaware that God had been speaking to the boy Samuel; Jacob had been unaware of God’s presence; the disciples on the road to Emmaeus were unaware that Jesus, the Messiah, was walking alongside them.

“You can guarantee that there are things that we are unaware,” the Australian preacher told a crowd at Fellowship Church. “We are unaware of God’s purpose, unaware of God’s plan, unaware of what God wants to do in a service like this.

“I want to encourage everyone here to not settle for living your life unaware.”

The state of unawareness can take many forms, according to Houston. We could be spiritual unaware or not have the self-awareness of who we are in Christ. Other times, we could be so aware of certain inadequacies that we are unaware of our God-given potential and God-given opportunities, he said.

Order Online: For This I Was Born: Aligning Your Vision to God’s Cause

Houston recalled that as a young boy he had the hope that one day God would use him somehow. He said that now as he looked back to that time, while he never walked those streets near his childhood home again, he could realize the grace that God shown in his life.

However, the Pentecostal pastor emphasized that he doesn’t want to grow complacent, being stuck in past endeavors that he is blind to God’s plan for him moving forward.

“The last thing what I want to do is to look back and see what I’ve done… or have many conferences I’ve been to… and be unaware of what God’s wants to do in my life the years ahead,” he said.

Drawing from Proverbs 1:32, Houston elaborated on the destructive nature of complacency and called on church and ministry leaders to never settle for the middle ground. Being complacent robs us of the opportunities placed in front of us by God, he said.

“It sits in words like mediocre and lukewarmness and half-heartedness,” Houston stated.

“If there is one thing that would bring out God’s objection is that middle ground, just sitting somewhere in the middle.”

Houston said Esau was indifferent to the birthright of God so he sold it for some stew.

He cautioned pastors and church leaders against looking elsewhere other than their indifference to find the answer to their problems.

“The biggest challenge is not opportunity. It’s just sitting there in the middle ground.”

“I pray in Jesus name that we won’t say to our soul anything that gets us to settle for easy street that gets us to miss our God-given opportunity,” Houston told the audience. “He (God) can do more for you than you could ever dreamed.”

Houston’s message Friday concluded the C3 2011 Dallas/ Fort Worth Conference, which kicked off Wednesday. The annual gathering of pastors and church leaders is designed to inspire ministers to take their church to the next level.

Other notable speakers at the conference included Fellowship Church pastor Ed Young, televangelist Joyce Meyer, the Potter’s House’s Bishop T.D. Jakes, The City Church’s Judah Smith and Elevation Church’s Steven Furtick.

The known heretics he is speaking with are Gary Clarke (Hillsong London), Ed Young, Joyce Meyer, T.D Jakes, Judah Smith, Steven Furtick,  and Kong Hee (Phil Pringle’s child of hell).

From: http://www.c3conference.com/index.php

Speakers

Ed Young

hosted by Ed Young

Joyce Meyer Joyce Meyer
Brian Houston Brian Houston
Bishop T.D. Jakes Bishop T.D. Jakes
Steven Furtick Steven Furtick
Judah Smith Judah Smith
Gary Clark Gary Clarke
Kong Hee Kong Hee
Shannon O’Dell Shannon O’Dell
Dr. Robbi Dr. Robi
More articles below on Furtick here:
I am worried about Shannon O’Dell. Simply visit O’Dell’s blog.

Tips to a Better Sunday Offering

By Shannon O’Dell / Posted on 16 February 2011

Dr. Dave Martin ,at our C3 Global Partners breakfast, imparted wisdom into me today about an issue many churches miss…THE OFFERING. Why do we skip one of the most blessed moment in worship? Here is the wisdom he imparted to me:

#1 Don’t back off the offering.
Make it a celebration, because givers love to give.
#2 Make sure your music matches your giving moment.
Don’t play the song “He’s Coming Soon” during the offering, because the large donor might say, “If Jesus is coming soon I will just hang on to this and give it to Him directly.”
#3 Givers don’t Kick…Kickers don’t give.
Realize that not everyone will get it, but most will, especially the seeking and unchurched. People will always complain about money and the church. Don’t let that stop you from obeying God.
#4 Tithing opens the window of blessing, and an Offering determines how much comes out of the window.
Tithing is the basic bare minimum and a sacrificial offering is when the overflow pours out.
#5 Change your offering envelopes monthly.
If they look at the same thing week after week it may become insignificant.
#6 Hand the envelopes out, don’t place them in the back of the seats.
Take the time to offer them the opportunity to offer to God.
#7 Share testimony and life change before passing the plate.
Let your church see your vision in action.
#8 Take up two offerings.
Take up the tithe weekly and an offering or “special” offering monthly.

Just some thoughts that might just revolutionize your churches giving.


92 thoughts on “Complacent Brian Houston Dances With Wolves

  1. Why is Gary Clarke a heretic?

    Why is Kong Hee Phil Pringle’s child of hell?

    These are serious allegations. You don’t provide any evidence here. Is that your opinion, or do you have some qualified reference to demonstrate these claims?

    I have never heard of Gary Clarke being called heretical. I’ve heard him speak in London, and he was orthodox, evangelical, Pentecostal, if in a Contemporary way. Great church. Happy Christians in love with Jesus. Heaps of students worshipping God, which is preferable to being out in the world. Good Christian man doing his best for Jesus. He seems quiet and humble about the way he goes about leading, too.

    Kong Hee is obviously an accomplished leader, and a good Christian God fearing man as far as I can make out. Heard him preach a few times in Singapore and elsewhere. Amazing church, filled with young adults definitely in love with Jesus. Continual, sustained growth, plenty of reference to Jesus. God glorifying. Reaching out into other parts of Asia.

    I don’t know what you are trying to say with all of these things, but they seem to carry a note of bitterness and gaul. Why?

  2. Take a bit of libertarian free will and the sovereignty of man, too high a view of man and a low a view of God, a man centred theology which is all about “me”, a perverse gospel of the “basically good” human condition and it improved by the meaningless drivell and life improvement strategies of uneducated apostate “superstar” leaders – and hey presto, everyone appears “God fearing as far as we can make out”

    Like CS Lewis said – the Eschaton is going to bring some big suprises

  3. “uneducated apostate “superstar” leaders” would be better described as “theologically ignorant apostate “superstar” leaders of apostate theologically & spiritually bankrupt idolatrous mega churches”

  4. @ELD, you must have skipped over the ‘orthodox, evangelical, Pentecostal, if in a Contemporary way’ and ‘plenty of reference to Jesus. God glorifying’ parts. Was that deliberate, or are you suffering from a reading declension?

    Are you same chappie who claims Wesley was in error for suggesting that men had a free will and could choose Christ for themselves if they heard the gospel preached?

  5. “Are you same chappie who claims Wesley was in error for suggesting that men had a free will and could choose Christ for themselves if they heard the gospel preached?”

    No – no classically reformed person says there is no such thing as “free will” rather we reject the erronious view of “libertarian free will” which is just one of the multitude of idols in the the idol factory of mens hearts –

    as to the remaider of your comment above, yes – that sounds like me – but I love Wesley (and most modern evangelicals who claim him – he would refuse to have fellowship with him)- but Im not the only one who would vehemently disagree with him on this point here a just a few proto-reformers and reformed scholars of the reformation period in its infancy who would disagree

    • Johannes Aepinus
    • Johann Agricola Eisleben
    • Ludwig Agricola
    • Mikael Agricola
    • Stephan Agricola
    • Erasmus Alber
    • Matthäus Alber
    • Alexander Alesius
    • Symphorian Altbießer
    • Andreas Althamer
    • Johannes Amandi
    • Nikolaus von Amsdorf
    • Jakob Andreae
    • Laurentius Andreae
    • Georg Aportanus
    • Caspar Aquila
    • Benedictus Aretius
    • James Arminius
    • Jan Augusta
    • Johannes Aurifaber (Vimariensis)
    • Johannes Aurifaber (Vratislaviensis)
    • Johannes Bader
    • Bartholomäus Bernhardi
    • Louis de Berquin
    • Jacob Beurlin
    • Christian Beyer
    • Hartmann Beyer
    • Johann Bernhard
    • Théodore de Bèze
    • Theodor Bibliander
    • Theobald Billicanus
    • Ambrosius Blarer
    • Andreas Bodenstein
    • Hermann Bonnus
    • Caspar Borner
    • Martin Borrhaus
    • Johannes Brenz
    • Guido de Bres
    • Johann Briesmann
    • Gregor Brück
    • Leonhard Brunner
    • Martin Bucer
    • Georg Buchholzer
    • Johannes Bugenhagen
    • Heinrich Bullinger
    • Benedikt Burgauer
    • Adrian Buxschott
    • Michael Caelius
    • Johannes Calvin
    • Wolfgang Capito
    • Andreas Cellarius (Theologe)
    • Michael Cellarius
    • Martin Chemnitz
    • David Chyträus
    • Adolf Clarenbach
    • John Colet
    • Johannes Comander
    • Konrad Cordatus
    • Anton Corvinus
    • Thomas Cranmer
    • Caspar Cruciger der Jüngere
    • Caspar Cruciger der Ältere
    • Abraham Culvensis
    • Valentin Curtius
    • Petrus Dathenus
    • Nikolaus Decius
    • Veit Dietrich
    • Johann Draconites
    • Johannes Dreyer
    • Johann Dölsch
    • Balthasar Düring
    • Paul Eber
    • Johann Eberlin von Günzburg
    • Johannes Sylvius Egranus
    • Paul von Eitzen
    • Francisco de Enzinas
    • Matthias Erb
    • Theodor Fabricius
    • Paul Fagius
    • Guillaume Farel
    • Matthias Flacius
    • Johann Forster
    • Martin Frecht
    • Sebastian Fröschel
    • Johannes Frosch
    • Philipp Gallicius
    • Nicolaus Gallus
    • Thomas Gassner
    • Johannes Garcreus
    • Gerard Geldenhouwer
    • Johannes Gigas
    • Johann Glandrop
    • Nikolaus Glossenus
    • Kaspar Gräter
    • Johannes Gramann
    • Daniel Greser
    • Argula von Grumbach
    • Simon Grynaeus
    • Augustin Gschmus
    • Rudolf Gualther
    • Caspar Güttel
    • Johann Habermann
    • Berchtold Haller
    • Patrick Hamilton (theologian)
    • Albert Rizaeus Hardenberg
    • Nicolaus Hausmann
    • Gerhard Hecker
    • Kaspar Hedio
    • Jacob Herbrand
    • Johannes Hefenträger
    • Peter Hegemon
    • Christoph Hegendorf
    • Jacob Hegge also Jacob Finkenblock
    • Kaspar Heidenreich
    • Johann Hess also Johann Heß
    • Tilemann Heßhusen
    • Heinrich Himmel
    • Sebastian Hofmeister
    • Johannes Honterus
    • John Hooper
    • Johann Horn
    • Kasper Huberius
    • Konrad Hubert
    • Andreas Hyperius
    • Hartmann Ibach
    • Christoph Irenäus
    • Franz Irenicus
    • Johann Isenmann also Johann Isenmenger
    • Matthias von Jagow
    • Justus Jonas der Ältere
    • George Joye
    • Leo Jud
    • Matthäus Judex
    • Franciscus Junius (the elder), also Franz Junius or François du Jon
    • Abraomas Kulvietis
    • Leonhard Kaiser also Leonhard Käser, Leonhard Kaysser
    • Kaspar Kantz
    • Georg Parsimonius also Karg
    • Stefan Kempe
    • Johann Kessler also Johann Keßler
    • Heinrich von Kettenbach
    • Thomas Kirchmeyer
    • Timotheus Kirchner
    • Jacob Knade
    • Johannes Knipstro
    • Andreas Knöpken
    • John Knox
    • Franz Kolb (Theologe)
    • Adam Krafft 1493-1558
    • Nikolaus Krage
    • Gottschalk Kruse
    • Johannes Kymaeus
    • Johann Lachmann
    • Franz Lambert von Avignon
    • Johann Lange (Theologe) thüringischer Reformator
    • Johannes Langer
    • Johannes á Lasco
    • Hugh Latimer
    • Anton Lauterbach
    • Johannes Lening
    • Johannes Lingarius also Johannes Bender
    • Konrad Limmer
    • Wenzeslaus Linck
    • Kaspar Löner
    • Johannes Lonicer
    • Johann Lüdecke also Johann Ludecus
    • Martin Luther
    • Johannes Lycaula
    • Martynas Mažvydas
    • Georg Major
    • Johann Mantel
    • Johannes Marbacher
    • Johannes Matthesius
    • Hermann Marsow
    • Nikolaus Medler
    • Kapar Megander
    • Philipp Melanchthon
    • Dionysius Melander
    • Justus Menius
    • Angelus Merula also Engel von Merlen
    • Michael Meurer also Michael Haenlein, Michael a Muris Galliculus
    • Sebastian Meyer
    • Joachim Mörlin
    • Maximilian Mörlin
    • Ambrosius Moibanus also Andreas Moyben
    • Jacob Montanus
    • Antonius Musa also Andreas West, Andreas Wilsch
    • Simon Musaeus also Simon Meusel
    • Andreas Musculus also Andreas Meusel
    • Wolfgang Musculus
    • Friedrich Myconius
    • Oswald Myconius
    • Hieronymus Nopp also Hieronymus Noppius
    • Brictius thom Norde also Nordanus
    • Bernardino Ochino
    • Johannes Oekolampad aka Oecolampadius
    • Georg Oemler also Aemelius
    • Konrad Öttinger
    • Kaspar Olevianus
    • Gerd Omeken
    • Andreas Osiander
    • Jacob Other also Jacob Otter
    • Peder Palladius
    • Johannes Pappus
    • Matthew Parker
    • Konrad Pelikan
    • Laurentius Petri
    • Olaus Petri
    • Johann Pfeffinger
    • Paul Phrygio also Paul Sidensticker, Paul Kostentzer
    • Johann Pistoris also Becker, Niddanus
    • Tilemann Plettener also Tilemann Platner
    • Andreas Poach
    • Georg von Polentz, also Georg von Polenz
    • Johann Pollius also Johann Polhen, Johann Polhenne
    • Abdias Prätorius
    • Stephan Prätorius
    • Jacobus Probst
    • Nikolaus Prugener
    • Erhard von Queiß
    • Ludwig Rabus
    • Balthasar Raid also Balthasar Reith
    • Stanislaus Rapagelanus
    • Urbanus Rhegius
    • Stephan Riccius
    • Johann Reibling
    • Bartholomaeus Rieseberg
    • Erasmus Ritter
    • Paul vom Rode
    • Patroklus Römeling
    • Georg Rörer
    • Bartholomäus Rosinus
    • Jacob Runge
    • Johann Rurer
    • Heinrich Salmuth
    • Konrad Sam
    • Erasmus Sarcerius
    • Martin Schalling the Elder
    • Martin Schalling the Younger
    • Christoph Schappeler
    • Georg Scharnekau
    • Jacob Schenck
    • Johann Schlaginhaufen also Johann Schlainhauffen, Johann Turbicida
    • Johann Schnabel
    • Tilemann Schnabel
    • Simon Schneeweiß
    • Erhard Schnepf
    • Johannes Schradin
    • Gervasius Schuler
    • Theobald Schwarz also Theobald Nigri, Theobald Niger
    • Kaspar Schwenckfeld
    • Abraham Scultetus
    • Jan Seklycian
    • Nikolaus Selnecker
    • Dominicus Sleupner also Dominicus Schleupner
    • Joachim Slüter also Jochim Slyter, Jochim Dutzo
    • Georg Spalatin
    • Cyriakus Spangenberg
    • Johann Spangenberg
    • Paul Speratus
    • Johann Stammel
    • Michael Stiefel
    • Johann Stössel
    • Johannes Spreter
    • Johann Stoltz
    • Jacob Stratner
    • Jacob Strauß
    • Victorinus Strigel
    • Bartholomaeus Suawe
    • Simon Sulzer
    • Johann Sutel
    • Hans Tausen
    • Sylvester Tegetmeier
    • Johann Timann
    • Pierre Toussaint
    • Primož Trubar
    • Hermann Tulich
    • William Tyndale
    • Johann Konrad Ulmer also Johann Konrad de Ulma
    • Zacharias Ursinus
    • Juan de Valdés
    • Thomas Venatorius
    • Georg von Venediger
    • Pier Paolo Vergerio
    • Pietro Martire Vermigli (Peter Martyr)
    • Pierre Viret
    • Burkhard Waldis
    • Joachim von Watt
    • Adam Weiß
    • Michael Weiße
    • Hieronymus Weller
    • Johann Westermann (Theologe)
    • Joachim Westphal
    • Johann Wigand
    • Heinrich Winkel also Heinrich Winckel
    • George Wishart
    • Bonifatius Wolfart
    • John Wycliffe
    • Thomas Wyttenbach
    • Girolamo Zanchi
    • Katharina Zell also Katharina Schütz
    • Matthäus Zell
    • Heinrich von Zütphen
    • Johannes Zwick
    • Gabriel Zwilling
    • Huldrych Zwingli

  6. Obviously the reference to James Arminius and any remonstrance scholar should not be in the above list

  7. I thought so!

    That’s fine, as long as we know where we’re coming from. I like it that you know where you stand.

    I’m also a Wesley fan, but more in agreement with his understanding of the free will than yours, and your friends’.

    That doesn’t make Gary Clarke a heretic, or Kong Hee Phil Pringle’s hell child.

    Have you ever visited their churches, met their congregations or spoken to their leaders about what they believe and how they demonstrate Christlikeness in the community they serve?

  8. Specks, I love the ‘Tips to a better Sunday Offering’, where bigger of course means better.

    Personally handing out envelopes – will people feel embarrassed not to take one, or embarrassed not to use them?

    I love reasons #2 and #4. #2 worries about the large donor not giving if they think Christ will return tomorrow because the wrong music is played. I’ve never heard of anyone who has decided to give thinking that way! Why wouldn’t they give even more, because they won’t need it tomorrow? You can see the fearful mindset in the author of the list though.

    “#4 Tithing opens the window of blessing, and an Offering determines how much comes out of the window.”

    So neatly put – makes it sound more true. Superstition, not scripture.

  9. @Kipling,I dont know who Gary Clarke is -but if any “leader” has anything to do with (apart from rebuking, resisting, and calling to repentance) mega apostate-factory churches, seeker sensitive methodology, the WOF cult, the Heretic TD Jakes, Houston, Pringle et al, then as far as Im concern the burden of proof is reversed and I start with the premise that they are apostates like the aforementioned false bretheren with false gospels and false doctrine, unless they can demonstrate otherwise…

  10. No I dont admit anything I simply refer to the matters I have laid out above which dont necessarily involve him because as I said, I dont know anything about him?? who is he?

  11. A little unfortunate that opposition is represented as the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams – Peter Masters from Metropolitan Tabernacle would have been a better choice! 🙂

  12. Ed Young Jnr tweets….

    “Incredible news! Someone just gave me a brand new FERRAI!!!! I’ll give you the details this weekend!!!”
    about 7 hours ago via Echofon

    Conferences are such a blessing!

  13. Teddy, that conference looks pretty good. ‘Best looking people in C3’… I’m not sure they are really being tongue in cheek there.

    Mind you, with all the meal breaks, they’ll need the fitness routines. I wouldn’t mind if some of the conferences I’ve been on (not necessarily church) had had fitness routines each morning as well.

    At least they can’t be accused of brain washing deprivation techniques – limiting food and breaks from conference sessions lasting many hours, a la Anthony Robbins etc.

  14. @Teddy, I didnt realise that Peter Masters must be about 6″6 and 120 kg – he’s a monster, I saw him in a photo with the legendary James White – he made James look like a bearded Garden Gnome!

    Peter is a fantasic preacher too… 🙂

  15. @Kipling –

    yep, this joker, Gary Clarke is a Hillsong Franchisee and enemy of the Christian faith and an apostate – and though I would not touch a hair on his head I am at war with him! WAR TO THE KNIFE with this apostate church and apostate gospel, into smoke let it consume, yea – into smoke let it consume!

  16. @Kipling – I just wanted to make myself clear from earlier – to make this debate a Calvinist v Arminian debate is wrong….John and Charles Wesley preached a Christ worshipping Biblical Gospel and (Charles) wrote the most beautififul hymns – they would despise what these men doing to the Church and the Gospel.

    If I could make it my profession, I would bring Hillsong and C3 and Brian & Phil down because they are not Christians nor do they have a biblical Gospel, rather they are impostors in it for gain and their own egos – I consider them a bigger threat to Christianity than Islam….seriously – I hate false doctrine that poses as Christianity more than anything that outwardly opposes it – Build a mosque instead of a Hillsong – as much as I oppose Islam and its false prophet I would prefer it than some Trojan Horse inside the City Walls

  17. Despite everything I have said about you Ian, I am thankful to God to hear that you are alive and doing ok freind in Christchurch, I hope your business is ok…

  18. interesting tweet Teddy. why is it that many megachurch pastors have praises on their lips about material gain and not Jesus?

    Matt 6.20-21 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
    For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

  19. Pastors should not only be aware of what God is doing, but the greater skill which most of these pastors should have is TO BE AWARE OF WHAT GOD IS NOT DOING. By being able to discern what God is NOT Doing, then it becomes apparent what God is doing.

    Unfortunately, these pastors are blinded by their own self interests, which makes them deaf to God’s voice.

  20. @Desmond “I would bring Hillsong and C3 and Brian & Phil down because they are not Christians nor do they have a biblical Gospel”… that’s a big claim.

  21. @Troy

    Yeah it is – but then again, perhaps you should attempt a defence their sub-biblical conduct, scripture twisting, and their christless christianity from the Bible and you might find out what a monumental task that is 🙂

  22. Just about every denomination twists scripture, whether deliberately or inadvertently, so on that basis no one cuts it. For instance, around 80% of the Church teaches tithing of some kind, not just some of these groups.

    Biblical conduct isn’t necessarily an indication of Biblical doctrine, as witnessed in all denominations, most of which have a basically sound doctrinal stance, but who can say they live up to the standards?

    I don’t see where you have demonstrated Christless Christianity in these movements, or, rather, you have yet to show a single piece of convincing evidence. All I see is pointless criticism devoid of substance.

    The onus is actually on the prosecution to demonstrate guilt. You are the accuser.

  23. @Kipling

    No worries, of course the legal burden of proof is borne by he who asserts.

    Do you subscribe to the statements faithfully summarising essential doctrines taught in scripture in the Nicene Creed?

  24. You mean the one instituted by council ordered by the Emperor Constantine, whose motto was “One God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor”?

    Amazingly, it came out pretty well despite this, and is OK as a basis for the thrust of your argument.

    I’d rather subscribe to the New Testament scriptures, however.

  25. What part/s of it can you not subscribe to?

    Is it not a faithful summary of essential Christian doctrines as taught in the scripture?

    if not why not?

  26. Because you prefer the NT Scriptures are you saying that the NT Scriptures teach something other than what the Nicene Creed summarises from scripture? If so what does scripture teach contrary or different to the Nicene Creed?

    Are you saying the the Nicene Creed was held out to be an authority over and above scripture?

    Do you also believe that it was Constatntine that “collated” the Christian Scriptures at Nicea?

  27. I’m fine with the Nicene Creed, but I wonder why you want to start your accusation with it rather than scripture. Are you comparing Hillsong or C3 to Arius?

  28. Are you comparing Hillsong or C3 to Arius? – Im glad you asked that because I can get to where I intended to go alot quicker. Your first “shread” of evidence is as follows:

    What was the early church’s response to the heresy of “Arius”???

    Answer: The Council Nicea, called by Constatine (so friggin what??) where he was openly confronted and finally declared a heretic after careful and detailed deliberation of the council. And the primary reason the Nicene definition prevailed and Arius didnt: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.

    Around A.D. 318 Arius began teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had not existed eternally, being “generated” eternally by the Father. Instead, Arius insisted that “there was a time when the Son was not.” Similarly, though not precisely the same, Modalism also denies the Trinity, which asserts that the three Persons have existed eternally.

    In that regard Kipling we today have the benefit of the early fourth century ecumenical creeds in light of exactly the same contraversies. Arianism is STILL a damnable heresy and so is modalism (as addressed in more detail in the definition of Chaldcedon).

    Now, on this very thread we have the absolute hide of Mr Houston purporting to warn Church Leaders of “Complacency” YET, Notwithstanding his twisting of Hebrews 13:12 to support his isegetical proposition, among other known heretics who attended the conference was the heretic modalist – Thomas Dexter Jakes – do you understand that Kipling – do you see the issue on this thread alone or are you patently friggin blind?

    Rather than calling this man to repentance and confronting him in his wilful error –
    “Pastor” Houston “After 34 years in ministry and spending most of that pastoring one church says that he “doesn’t want to become complacent and unaware of what God wants to do through him in the future.”

    HAA HAA HA! are you serious???

    He doesnt want to become complacent….all the while attending a public conference standing in lock-step and lending credibility and an open platform to HERETICS.

    Your first “shread” kipling on this post alone -Christians, just like the early Christian Church did in reponse to Arius call out false teachers and “Pastors” are supposed to protect the flock against false doctrine and teachers – yet Houston has no problem with with modern day Sabellian – TD Jakes I believe hes personally hosted him before.

    Waxing more elloquent on the scriptures which he perpectually twists drawing from Proverbs 1:32, “Houston elaborated on the destructive nature of complacency and called on church and ministry leaders to never settle for the middle ground. Being complacent robs us of the opportunities placed in front of us by God, he said.”

    What about the damned destructive nature of heresy?

    There is “shred” 1 and I didnt even need to look beyond this post….

    Now your turn – I want you to find the last sermon Houston gave a full, propoer and biblical exposition on the Gospel….actually, I will make it easier, want you to find the last sermon Houston gave a full, propoer and biblical exposition on any scripture in the Bible….

  29. You are an excitable chappie!

    So far you’ve said nothing, though. Just that you disagree with T D Jakes, and, by association, Brian Houston.

    So you conflate modalism with anyone who has a sniff of Jakes, based on not accepting his counter-claim that he is not a modalist. Does this make Houston a modalist, though? I don’t think so. Nor dos it make C3 modalist.

    So, nothing directly from Hillsong or C3 to prove them Christless Christians (an oxymoron, by the way) , just a loose association with an obscure, denied claim, and you want me to do your dirty work for you?

    My hearing of Jakes is that he is far more Calvinist than modalist, anyway. Very fatalistic in much of his teaching, if you really listen to any of it. Very much on the lines of Reformist sovereignty teaching.

    Constantine, by the way, considered himself the Emperor of the Church, that’s so what! But we wouldn’t want indirect political motives or association to get in the way of a sound debating point, would we?

  30. TD Jakes is a Calvinist! ha! yeh and Benny Hinn is a Fransican Monk!

    Do you even know what a Calvinist is??? why on earth are you comparing Calvinism to modalism? do you understand what modalism is?? How can you defend TD Jakes when you cant even demonstrate a basic understanding of modalism?

    Do you understand that United Pentecostals are, by confession, modalists – i.e. they are “Oneness” Pentecostals! (they deny the orthodox teaching of the trinity Kipling) TD Jakes is a Oneness Pentecostal for goodness sake – he is a formal heretic – you dont know what you are on about…..

    I understand why you would not undertake to attempt to find just one Brian Houston sermon where he properly and biblically exegetes ONE text of scripture (just one!!) let alone the Gospel – because such a sermon doesnt exist….he is a scripture twisting false teacher and You are simply unable to defend him on this basis…

    Not only are you ignorant on the tenets of other basic theological beliefs (i.e. Calvinism and the straw man on fatalism) and heresies (i.e. modalism/sabellianism) Ultimately you are saying that Christian Pastors and leaders are not required to defend essential doctrines of the faith revealled in scripture, and that they can team up with formal heretics who have denied the faith without so much as offering one word of correction and lend their pulpits to false teacher….that doesnt say much for you….

    If you would like another example of Houstons heresies and twisting the meaning of scripture – I challenge you to listen to this sermon review called (conveniently enough for you) “An Example of Hillsong’s Heresies”

    http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2010/08/hillsong-heresy-an-example-of.html

    Have a listen and defend Houston’s heretical scripture twisting of OT Prophets….

    Can you please explain the role that Constantine played at Nicea (apart from calling it) and tell me how his political motives affected the outcome of Nicea either directly or indirectly? and if you are not saying that then what is the relevance of your comment?

    How is Constantine who called a council to examine the heresy of Arius in anyway comparable to Brian Houston teaming up with the heretic TD Jakes – evidently he was the guest speaker at the “Hillsong Conference 2010” AS WELL – a “leader” is just as much a wolf who would allow a heretic into his pulpit – TD Jakes is also a WOF Heretic – care to defend word of faith teachings?

    TD Jakes is Oneness Pentecostal therefore PRIMA FACIE a trinity denying modalist/sebellian – can you posit something more substantial than just to say he “denies it” – a bare denial is not realy interacting is it?

  31. TD Jakes is a “Calvinist” – of course Mother Theresa was secretly a card carrying member of the Khmer Rouge too, right!!!??

    – bone head 🙂

  32. Ha ha. You’d be so easy to wind up! Like Zebedee on a coil! Doing! Springing off all over the place at one word!

    The first thing we have to establish here is whether you are exhibiting Christlikeness in your approach to this discussion, since your claim is that Hillsong and C3 are Christless Christians, which is what I am questioning.

    It looks as if you’re a rather rude individual, dismissive and boorishly self-righteous – so far in this discussion, anyway!

    You haven’t proved anything about Hillsong except they use a preacher you don’t approve of. Jakes is on record as declaring he is not a modalist. I’ve already pointed this out to you.

    I actually said, he sounds like a Calvinist in his sovereignty teaching. I didn’t say he was a Calvinist. His view of God is similar to Islam’s view of Allah. God is sovereign, therefore he may do this or that to teach us a lesson, or set us up for something or other. Rick Warren uses the same approach. Have you ever actually heard Jakes preach? Houston? Anyone you’re attacking?

    What kind of lawyer are you to prosecute without observing and examining the evidence against those you accuse for yourself, but lazily relying on the unfounded prejudice of others, and on the defence to put up evidence for your case? Put up the evidence based on the words of those you accuse, and stop flapping around.

    Fighting for the faith is a Lutheran based ministry. I think Rosbrough treats other ministers with contempt beyond any brief God has given him. I’ve tried, but I can’t be bothered listening to any more of his interruptive, antagonistic style.

    If you can’t exhibit Christlikeness in your apologetic, then you are declaring yourself as Christless as those you accuse.

    I say neither Houston nor Pringle are Christless, and the fruit of their ministry, disciples who attest to Christ as Lord, and minsters of God who preach Christ, are evidence enough.

  33. FYI: T D Jakes own words on his early influences and on the doctrine of the Trinity:

    “Both [Baptist and Oneness Pentecostal] chapters of my early spiritual journey contributed volumes to my faith and walk with God, helping to hone my character. I was shaped by and appreciate both denominations, but am controlled by neither. My association with Oneness people does not constitute assimilation into their ranks any more than my association with the homeless in our city makes me one of them….

    …I believe in one God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe these three have distinct and separate functions — so separate each has individual attributes, yet are one. I do not believe in three Gods.”

    I’m not interested in a discussion about Jakes. I would not consider myself a dedicated follower, or a defender of his ministry. You brought him up as a proof of Christless Christianity of Hillsong, and failed to convince.

    He is undoubtedly a marvellous teacher of the Word, but based on a view which portrays God in an authoritative, sovereign way, which is very similar to the predestination teaching of Calvinists. I’m not saying he is a Calvinist, but there are similarities.

    He definitely, though, exhibits Christlikeness in his teaching and affirmation of the work of the cross, repentance, redemption and the major doctrines of Christ.

    That is all I have to say about Jakes.

    The way I see it, faith is in Jesus Christ alone. Thee is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved.

    We are not, anywhere asked to believe in, or confess the Trinity. I say this from a perspective of believing in the doctrine of the Trinity, although I prefer to express it in the Godhead, as does scripture, which nowhere mentions the Trinity, although it is implied.

    Which is why I questioned your need to use a creed which focuses on the doctrine of the Trinity to demonstrate whether certain persons are Christless Christians. Surely you need to prove that they do not hold to the doctrines of Christ, or faith in Christ himself.

  34. Some questions for you Kipling.

    1. When did you last read Paul’s letter to the Galatians? In it, instead of his usual practice of saying something nice about the people he’s writing to before telling them off about something … he goes straight for the jugular. He is so angry about false teaching he sends them a very undiplomatic letter! Go read it … in the NIV preferably.

    2. By definition, is a oneness pentecostal saved? Denial of the trinity is a denial of distinctness of Christ and a denial of His humanity, a denial of His ability to be a perfect sacrifice for our sins and therefore a denial of salvation by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

    3. In your quote above, TD Jakes essentially sees no difference in his associations between Baptists and Oneness Pentecostals. He is effectively saying he is a oneness pentecostal in that he agrees with the doctrines. So, is TD Jakes saved by grace?

    While you may accuse ELD of not being Christlike, he is fighting, in the same way as Paul, for salvation by Grace alone.

    This issue is a primary issue. Wrong ideas about Jesus lead to Satan. We need to fight for the Gospel once delivered to the saints. Paul warns us about this, Peter warns us, John warns us and so does Jude, one of the two brothers of Jesus who have written to us in the Scriptures.

    Another couple of questions.
    a. Is evidence of success evidence of God’s Approval? Hillsong is a big Church. TD Jakes has thousands in his congregation etc.

    b. Joel Osteen, author of “Your Best Life Now”, is Pastor of one of the largest churches in the world 43,000 people attend every Sunday. He has gone on public record as saying that Mormons are Christians and he has encouraged his congregation to follow the Kosher Food laws.
    Is he correct to do so?

  35. Kipling – what is modalism? your not listening to me so wikipedia it….

    ONE SERMON – JUST ONE (1) from either Pringle, Huston giving a proper Historic and Biblical presentation of the Gospel…

  36. What does modalism have to do with anything in this discussion? What has Arius to do with anything?

    is C3 Christless? One piece of evidence? Is Hillsong Christless?

    If they are Christless, then they are not Christians. They cannot be Christless Christians. They are either one or the other.

    Show me where either movement is without Christ.

    Show me, from scripture, where we have to know anything about the Trinity to be saved.

    Show me where faith in Christ alone is not the basis for salvation, because no one can know the Father unless they know the Son, and if you know the Son then you automatically know the Father. If you know the Son you receive the Spirit. Tell me what else I need to know or confess.

    It is you who are confusing the issue by insisting that salvation is through faith in the Trinity. That is not sound doctrine.

    You read Galatians, Bull. No one has to be rude enough to call people boneheads, ignorant or lacking understanding. But, if you want to support this means of debate, then go ahead, but I fail to see how it adds to any argument to insult people. Paul wasn’t doing that at all. he s pointing out discrepancies in application of the Word and Spirit. he was showing them how to avoid being legalised by Judaisers. That their faith should be in Chrst alone, not an added on doctrine which became law.

    Tell me why anyone has to believe in or follow anyone but Jesus Christ of Nazareth to be saved, and to be considered a Christian. Tell me why anyone has to understand the Trinity to be Christlike.

    I don’t disagree that we need to know who the God of the Bible is, and have a basic understanding of the Godhead, and that includes the teachings of the Trinity, but why does it make anyone Christless to not grasp the concepts of the Trinity when many councils have failed to agree on it, and there is still division today between the Eastern and Western Orthodoxies over the Filioque Clause.

    The Westminster Confession gives God as ‘without body, parts, or passions’. Can we all agree on this? Is not Jesus the Word (God) made flesh? Is he not the fulness of the Godhead in bodily form. Do we not celebrate the Passion of Christ at Passover?

    Can you explain these things? Is it not anathema to deny that Christ came in the flesh? Do they make one iota of difference to person’s salvation as long as he takes Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour?

    Can you explain the 39 articles of Religion of the Anglican Church? Are they all so? Are infants saved at baptism?

    Or is our witness Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, and in him is all we need to have faith? All else follows. Baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but as those who have already confessed Jesus as Lord.

    Prove for yourself that they are Christless.

  37. The thrust of Galatians:

    ‘…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”

    ‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.’

    ‘O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?’

    ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.’

    ‘But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.’

    ‘Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’

    ‘But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”’

    ‘Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.’

    Not one mention of the Trinity. Nor of this introduced law of the Trinity. Only of faith in Jesus Christ.

    Don’t let anyone bewitch you into accepting a law above the Royal Law of Love.

    Don’t be entangled with the rules of men which spoil the gospel by which Christ has made us free.

  38. ONE SERMON – JUST ONE (1) from either Pringle, Huston giving a proper Historic and Biblical presentation of the Gospel…

  39. Paul tells the Galatians that he wished that the Judaizers would castrate themselves …

    Tithing is part of the Old Covenant too.

    I pointed to Galatians as an example of very strong language from Paul. Not as a defense of the trinity.

    Does the law of love mean that God will not send anyone to hell?

  40. To remind everyone what I asked regarding Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

    “1. When did you last read Paul’s letter to the Galatians? In it, instead of his usual practice of saying something nice about the people he’s writing to before telling them off about something … he goes straight for the jugular. He is so angry about false teaching he sends them a very undiplomatic letter! Go read it … in the NIV preferably.”

    Am I talking about the trinity here?

    No.

    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt Kipling and assume you didn’t understand my post, rather than try and set up a straw man argument. It was a response to your assertion that ELD was writing in a non-christlike manner. Well, there goes Paul writing in a similar vein.

    Salvation is at stake. Are Mormons saved? Are oneness pentecostals saved? These folks deny the biblical Jesus. Therefore they are not saved.

    Will Muslims go to heaven Kipling?

  41. You’re bit over the place, Bull. Can we stay on track, please? I’m asking ELD to show why Hillsong and C3 are ‘Christless Christians’, as he calls them.

    Maybe, since you are supporting ELD, you can you show us? I’m not discussing Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, Judaisers, or any other mob, just Hillsong and C3. Show us where they are Christless. Show us where they do not hold to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and teach on living a Christlike life.

    It is ELD who raised the Trinity, not I. I questioned this approach, since it is not the Trinity we have to believe in to be saved, but Jesus Christ. It is now clear that he did so to highlight Jakes, who is not the object of the argument, but peripheral to it.

    He has to show why Hillsong and C3 do not associate themselves with Christ. He has not.

    Secondly, I am asking him for evidence for a spurious claim, so what has this to do with Galatians, and you claim of the art of being rude to people? I’m not bewitched, I am not foolish, or swayed by Judaisers. There is no comparison. ELD’s not being bad mannered towards Hillsong or C3, but towards me for asking why he claims they are Christless.

    ELD. You are the accuser. It is for you to find the evidence, not I. Stop stalling.

  42. @Kipling

    One question – how do you talk about the deity o Christ without talking about the Trinity?????

    If you are saying the trinity is not an essential Christian doctrine then as Bull asks kipling, why cant the Muslim be saved, Islam promotes “belief” and veneration of Jesus, as does Mormonism as do JW’s, etc, etc …

    The common thread Kipling, is the denial of the deity of Christ hence the denial of the Trinity (and in all respects abject denial of the Trinity as well!!!). If you do not have the SON you do not have the FATHER…souls are at stake an accurate understanding of the GOSPEL is crucial for salvation an accurate understanding of WHO CHRIST IS is also crucial….

    Again I ask you, how you talk about WHO Christ is without even so much as glossing over he subject of the Trinity???

    “….the harmony that exists between the various doctrines of the Christian faith is such that error in regard to any one of them produces more or less distortion in all the others.” (Lorraine Boettner)

  43. @Kipling – you are the one denying that the Trinity is not essential for salvation….how do you talk about the deity of Christ without talking about the Trinity?????

    [Kipling Says] “Tell me why anyone has to believe in or follow anyone but Jesus Christ of Nazareth to be saved, and to be considered a Christian. Tell me why anyone has to understand the Trinity to be Christlike.”

    Because if you wilfully deny the very essence of who Christ-IS, then how can one be very Christ-LIKE…if you do not have the SON, you do not have the FATHER…..

  44. So where do Hillsong or C3 deny the deity of Christ?

    No one is glossing over the importance of the Trinity.

    Or of the understanding of it, although I challenge you to explain it to anyone with any degree of accuracy without referring them to a theological exposition of great length, with explanatory clauses and footnotes, along with the various challenges and exceptions to the various rules set up therein by the divers bodies and theological schools and entities which have devised means by which they translate an extremely complex concept.

    For instance, explain the Trinity to a ten year old, who is, surely, old enough to accept Christ without having the slightest understanding of the Trinity.

    Hence the truth that we are saved through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, not by an understanding of the Trinity.

    You have moved along from the need to accept the doctrine of the Trinity, which I do, and I know Hillsong and C3 do, to accepting the deity of Christ, which I do, and I know Hillsong and C3 do.

    So where to now?

  45. The last time you led someone to the Lord, ELD, how did you explain the Trinity to them whilst you were witnessing to them? Or did you mention the Trinity at any time whilst you were preaching the gospel to them?

    I have had the glad honour and privilege of being used by God to lead many people to the Lord, through faith in Jesus, and have never, to my memory, had to mention or explain, or expound on the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet the overwhelming majority of the people I am still in contact with whom we have led to the Lord are still walking with Jesus, and are still believers, and have the fruit of redemption and change in their lives, through their walk with Jesus Christ, glory be to God.

    Of course, they also have a better understanding now of the deity of Christ, and of the doctrine of the Godhead, which is gleaned through sound teaching in the process of discipleship.

    So, can you explain how you introduced the Trinity doctrine to the last person you led to the Lord, as you were introducing the gospel to them, please?

  46. Great, we are now getting to the crux of the issue – Biblical Evangelism: I have never “led anyone to the Lord” and neither have you….in that unbiblical phrase you are defining precisely what biblical evangelism is NOT and why your venerated C3 and Hillsong have so far drifted away from anything that could be described as biblical or historic “Christianity”. Furthermore, but more as a secondary issue, your begging the most important question, you are assuming the truth of synergistic regeneration whereas no such concept is taught in the Scriptures – I am quite happy to go there with you but seeing that you don’t even have a basic understanding of what a “Calvinist” is or believes, I don’t thing it will profit anyone much…

    Save to say Kipling, I have borne witness to the truth of the Gospel to many men and women who do not have faith in CHRIST, funnily enough, I have found each time I do this that people who generally possess some level of intelligence do not tacitly accept on its face that a jewish carpenter who claimed to be God incarnate on earth 2000 years ago who ended up being crucified, is their Lord and will someday return as their judge unless they repent and turn to Him in faith – AND YES as an integral part of bearing witness to that truth I have had to carefully explain that God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way (not that hard is it!!)…..

    Because there is a world to be evangelized (men who are unconverted), there is the need for the believer to defend his faith: Evangelism naturally brings one into a defence of the faith
    have you ever preached the Gospel to a JW or a Mormon without a reasoned defence of the faith????;
    Have you ever preached the Gospel to a Muslim without a reasoned defence of the faith????;
    Have you ever preached the Gospel to a Athiest without a reasoned defence of the faith????;

    The very reason why Christians are put in the position of giving a reasoned account of the hope that is in them – i.e. THEIR FAITH is that not all men have FAITH and because the CHRISTIAN FAITH actually contains some real content and propositional truth claims that require some basic explanation to the unconverted.

    The problem is Kipling, the unholy sacrament of the “alter call” – raising one’s hand, walking the isle, singing 35 Choruses of “just as I am”, swaying from side to side with hands raised, has become the new golden calf of the modern church – a stupid, superstitious, pathetic little evangelical rite with no biblical precedent that has replaced a correct exposition of the biblical & historic gospel as the MEANS to which men must be saved….

    Perhaps rather than asking what unconverted God hating piles of corruption “will do WITH JESUS” ask the same individuals “WHAT WILL JESUS DO WITH YOU”

  47. Pithy waffle! You say heaps, assume far too much, and produce little of use.

    Evangelism is literally good messaging, the gospel being glad tidings of good news. Preaching is literally heralding the good news, proclaiming the gospel. No one is saved without preaching, no one preaches unless they are sent, no one hears unless the preacher proclaims the Word of faith. God sends the preacher. Jesus gave the command to go int all the world and preach the gospel to all. All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. All who believe in their heart, and confess with their lips that Jesus is Lord will be saved. That is God’s guarantee. But they cannot hear with a preacher, a herald, a proclaimer of good news.

    You want the bad news to be the object of your evangelism. You want their sin highlighted, when it is the cross, the crucifixion, and essentially Jesus Christ who is to be highlighted. What he as done, not what we have to do, as if we can do anything to save ourselves. Only Christ can save a soul. Only those with faith in the finished work of the propitiation can receive the free gift of eternal life.

    But they cannot hear without a preacher. That is scripture. So, in effect, it is possible to say that a person is led to Jesus by a preacher.

  48. I think the problem you have, ELD, is with thinking that anyone you discuss issues with might actually agree with you on most points. But you make an enemy out of a possible ally with your false assumptions, which is unfortunate.

    I have no reason to doubt either your sincerity or your understanding of grace, faith or the gospel. Reading through what you say in the light of new day, I can see we would agree on most aspects of the need for repentance and regeneration. I do understand basic Calvinist ideas, although I do not see them as essential to a salvation message. I do recognise we have a difference of opinion in some things, but not on crucial issues such as the Trinity, deity of Christ, the need of a Saviour, the sinfulness of all men, and the need of repentance.

    I also understand that your defence of the gospel includes an apologetic in some cases, which I would agree with. I fought with you over this, and defended my position, because you made assumptions to the contrary, but, on reflection, we probably agree on more than we disagree.

    I put it to you that my position closely resembles that of those you claim are Christless. I am asking you to show where they are Christless. You cannot. Their faith is in Christ.

    But you have not demonstrated that they are Christless, only that you do not think they are. There is a difference.

    I have neither claimed a synergistic or monergistic regeneration. I have not said I could personally save anyone. I can’t. Only Christ can. Only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ saves a person, and that is the point of what I have been saying all along, because neither are they saved through an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, however much you may explain it to them in your preaching.

    However your explanation assists, I’m sure you’ll agree, in their coming closer to an understanding of truth. That is leading someone.

    Like you, I can help bring someone closer to understanding the truth of their need of Christ. That is leading someone to Him.

  49. @Kipling

    In response to your last comment – I have just answered you question about the necessity of expounding foundational Christian doctrines AS AN INTEGRAL PART of evangelism, its scriptural mandate, and its necessity as an indispensable part of a biblical presentation of the Gospel (which you have in no way addressed or refuted).

    Your inconsistency is really starting to catch up with you – remember that you are the one denying that the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine for salvation – so you are also necessarily saying that it doesn’t matter whether a person knows of or affirms the deity of Jesus Christ and His according sinlessness and perfection as a propitiating sacrifice for their sin – just as long as their boney hand went up during the stinking alter call after a superfluous motivational pep talk which twisted some bible verses!! In that regard:

    1. How do you talk about the deity of Christ without talking about the Trinity?? (You haven’t answered that one yet!)

    2. As discussed, evangelism naturally brings the preacher/herald/messenger into a defence of the faith – so please explain to us out of your wealth of evangelistic experience and the “multitudes” you have “led to the Lord” how you can have done this without ever having had occasion to also give a reasoned defence of the faith???

    3. I assume that in your bountiful evangelical endeavors that you have encountered individuals calling themselves JW’s, Muslims, Mormons, Atheists etc, etc all who deny the deity of Christ and the Trinity – how did you “lead them to the Lord” without having touched on a basic exposition of the basic foundational Christian doctrine as enunciated in the 4th century ecumenical creeds especially the Nicene?????

    I know you cant answer the above so I think we can safely assume that extent and theological content of your “Gospel” (just like the “CHRISTLESS” AND APOSTATE C3 and Hillsong) is tragically confined to appealing to “the basically good” nature of humanity (pelagianism), willfully twisting God’s Word and dangling the carrot of “your best life now” in front of their faces to draw them in (which is a LIE in any event), and having the blind guide leading the blind goats in the tragically superstitious sacrament of “raising one’s hand, walking the isle, singing 35 Choruses of “just as I am”” after which they have got just enough false assurance and superstitious religion to damn their soul to hell….

    The reality is Kipling your religion is not biblical Christianity and your “gospel” is no gospel at all….

  50. ‘just as long as their boney hand went up during the stinking alter call after a superfluous motivational pep talk which twisted some bible verses!!’

    I don’t know what you’re talking about, and neither do you.

    I was actually discussing one on one evangelism, witnessing to a person, not an altar call. I have never done a ‘stinking’ altar call. The rest of what you say in that phrase is beneath contempt.

    However, do you think for one second that a person who responds at an altar call has just had their first ever contact with the gospel? That is so naive. They were brought to the meeting by someone, who, in all probability, has already witnessed to them and given a gospel presentation, and, in general, a person who responds to an altar call has heard the gospel many times before they affirm it in a meeting. You really show your ignorance if you do not realise this.

    I have never denied the Trinity in any way shape or form. I gave you the essentials of the gospel, including from Galatians, which doesn’t actually mention the Trinity once. If it were essential you’d think Paul would highlight it. In fact, he only discusses the Godhead twice in all of his writings. Our need of Christ he mentions numerous times. How often does Jesus tell us to preach the Trinity? Paul? John? James? Peter? No, they all point us to Jesus Christ, as does the Holy Spirit.

    I have told you that I would agree that a defence of the gospel, including the deity of Christ, is part of our witnessing armoury, but, regardless, a person can still only be saved through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    In my experience JW’s, Mormons and similar need deliverance. No defence of the Trinity will change their minds. They are demonised by heir cults. I learned long ago to avoid arguing with them, which is usually a waste of time.

    The people I lead to the Lord are generally open to the gospel, having already been drawn by the Father.

    The final paragraphs I’ll address later, since it is such a moronic perspective, unless you want to apologise first.

  51. @ELD…
    ‘I know you cant answer the above so I think we can safely assume that extent and theological content of your “Gospel” (just like the “CHRISTLESS” AND APOSTATE C3 and Hillsong) is tragically confined to appealing to “the basically good” nature of humanity (pelagianism), willfully twisting God’s Word and dangling the carrot of “your best life now” in front of their faces to draw them in (which is a LIE in any event), and having the blind guide leading the blind goats in the tragically superstitious sacrament of “raising one’s hand, walking the isle, singing 35 Choruses of “just as I am”” after which they have got just enough false assurance and superstitious religion to damn their soul to hell….
    The reality is Kipling your religion is not biblical Christianity and your “gospel” is no gospel at all….’

    For some reason you’ve decided to make this personal, even though I attempted a peacemaking interlude at 3.21pm.

    So now I am Christless, according to you!

    This I can answer with clarity. You are absolutely wrong. I am a Christian. A follower of Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour some time ago, and have been a disciple ever since. I have an Anglican rector, who led me to the Lord, one on one, as a witness to this. I confessed Jesus as Lord before witnesses, and Jesus confessed me before the Father in Heaven.

    The gospel I preach is the gospel of Christ. It is good news to a fallen world. I understand and acknowledge that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but God has sent His Son, Jesus, as the Propitiation to all those who believe in His name.

    I do not preach pelagianism. No one is good but God. Sin entered through Adam, and none is righteous. All have a need of a Saviour, and salvation is through Christ alone.

    I can’t remember being in a meeting where ‘just as I am’ was sung, but I’m sure there must have been one somewhere along the line, but never during an altar call. I think you’re a bit out of touch.

    You have made some disgusting and unproven allegations about me which I totally refute.

    You have failed to show one single reason for agreeing with you that either Hillsong or C3 is Christless.

    I think, in all probability, we’re done.

  52. Kipling says “The people I lead to the Lord are generally open to the gospel, having already been drawn by the Father.”

    Hmmm…..“Ready-to-Go Microwave Converts”!!!!!!! (there’s gotta be a patent in that!!!)

    “ARE YOU SICK OF THE HARD WORK OF EVANGELISM???”

    “WANT AN EASIER WAY??”

    “WHY NOT TRY OUR NEW “READY-TO-GO MICROWAVE CONVERTS”!!!

    Simply open the packet tell your microwave convert “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” prove this to your convert by opening your message translation and taking out of context Jeramiah 29:10 “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future” Get your convert to repeat the standard pathetic little neo-evangelical rituals and you will instantly have new false convert for your megachurch

    “Ready-To-Go Microwave Converts” – Evangelism is soooo easy when all the offence, including scandal of the cross has been removed from the gospel…..

    (Disclaimer – Hillsong Limited does not guarantee that any of its “Ready-To-Go Microwave Converts” have been drawn by the father prior to packaging and handling)

  53. @Kipling – do you a trade buddy!

    One “Ready-To-Go Microwave Convert” for JUST ONE measely sermon/article/even a friggin TWEET from either Pringle or Huston giving a proper Historic and Biblical presentation of the Gospel… 🙂

  54. What are you on about, ELD?

    You must be the biggest time wasting, self-aggrandising anti-christian troll I’ve ever had the misfortune to encounter.

    I thought you were prepared to give some kind of evidence of Hillsong and C3 being Christless, but it turns out to be hot air and piffle.

    I must admit, in context with some things you’ve said, I’ve had more interesting discussions with JW’s. At least they think they have something to say.

    Reciting experts on soteriology, the Trinity, theology, doesn’t equate to being a Christian. You have given me doubts, because of your conduct here, about your ability to show any kind of Christlikeness.

    Thanks for nothing!

  55. “Ha ha. You’d be so easy to wind up! Like Zebedee on a coil! Doing! Springing off all over the place at one word!”

    Short memory….?

  56. In all of their preaching and teaching, as a whole, there is an undue emphasis on Money.

    Brian and Phil run fairly large organisations and apply tithing legalistically to their adherents.

    “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.”

    Brian wrote a book “You need more money” (to give to me!)
    Phil wrote a book “The keys to financial excellence” (so you can give more to me!)

    Will God bless you if you Tithe, Kipling? Is that being Christlike?

    Quote Chapter and verse please.

    Give it your best shot.

  57. The claim was that they are Christless, Bull.

    Can you show this? Can anyone here? So far, no go.

    If you want to go into a tithing debate, you can, I won’t, since it’s not relevant to what the claim is here, and I don’t defend or comply to compulsory tithing practices, but just remember that it’s possible that at least 80% of churches teach some form of tithing. If tithing is evidence of being Christless, then most churches fail.

    No, let’s see if you can prove that Hillsong or C3 do no confess to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

  58. So on a short summary of beliefs on a webpage Hillsong or C3 make to standard confession that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. Funnily enough, JW’s and Mormons confess the same things –

    and yet there is no evidence that C3/Hillsong preach the historic & biblical christian faith (and Gospel) in any meaningful way. They preach a pelagian gospel of motivation, self help and improvement. The heresy of Pelagianism has been condemned at more church councils in Church History than any of the multitudes of heresies. They do not preach a biblical gospel kipling because it doesnt sell nor does it get asses on seats…

    – JUST ONE measely sermon/article/even a TWEET from either Pringle or Huston giving a proper Historic and Biblical presentation of the Gospel…

    one Kipling!!

  59. We’re not examining JW’s or Mormons, are we? We know their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. He is neither a god, or the brother of Lucifer, or the archangel Michael. End of story.

    I have said enough on this thread to counter any claims of parity with these cults.

    You have shown nothing.

    I’m not interested in furnishing you with any sermons. You made the claim. You do the research.

    But, now, shouldn’t you have done this before you made the accusation?

    The fact that you didn’t tells us all that you currently and tellingly have no evidence, just claims, innuendo and falsehoods.

    Unless you come up with something to demonstrate without doubt that they are Christless, case closed!

  60. I want to point out that I never made any claim about them being Christless.

    In fact I was merely defending the robustness of ELD’s language.

    However, I ask you one question Kipling. I don’t care about PP or BH really as they are a world away from where I live (as well as being filthy rich so a world away from how I live … I work for a living). The question is this: “Are JW’s and Mormons in a state of Grace? In other words, are they SAVED?”

    If you like we can open another thread if you do not wish to answer that on this thread.

    Your answer will lead to other questions of course.

    To get back on topic, God’s people have a responsibility with the material blessing they receive. I’ve been into Isaiah in the last couple of days and it struck me how Judah was so rich, it was like in the days of Solomon and yet it was rotten to the core.

    They were thrown out of the promised land as punishment.

    The analogy for Christian believers is, do we assume that we are blessed cos we are good or do we give thanks for the undeserved mercies of God?

    BH and PP demonstrate an attitude to material blessing which Jesus would vomit out of his mouth.

    They do not behave in a Christlike manner with regard to finances, Church finances or otherwise. Blatant scripture twisting designed to fleece as much money from people with false promises of material blessing.

    Give to get. Sowing and reaping. Leading to name it, claim it. Blab it, grab it. Word of Faith heretical clap-trap.

    You say that 80% of churches have some form of tithing … well I happen to know that 95% of all statistics quoted are made up on the spot.

    How many of these churches teach their parishoners that God will repay them 10 times, 30 times or a 100 times what they sow?

    That is such a blatant false promise based on Old Covenant principles that I can’t add anything else.

    I don’t hate them. I do feel sick when I think about the complete lack of any biblical integrity these guys have.

  61. ok … so JW’s and Mormons are not saved. We agree.

    However, oneness pentecostals also deny the biblical Jesus. They can’t be saved either … can they?

    TD Jakes thinks they are, because he is one of them. Listen, we all know ‘good’ people who are very very nice and even display Christlike attributes in their character but who do not believe in Jesus.

    They demonstrate much fruit of the spirit … yet they don’t display all 9 fruits.

    The challenge for us is clear. Do WE display all 9 fruits of the spirit?

    To clarify the earlier post a bit more. Those fellas did great to build large churches. However, they didn’t bother to critique their own knowledge and indeed adopted certain teachings which had the pragmatic effect of helping them grow their churches. It is a stretch to ascribe motivations to BH and PP. No one can know another persons heart, or truly understand a persons true motivations.

    I have said elsewhere that ambition to build a church is not an evil one. Competition isn’t inherently evil either. It is a noble task to desire to lead and build God’s Kingdom. They happen to have chosen certain doctrines that are not biblical and are ‘easy’ for adherents to adopt.

    Tell your people to give 10% … no if’s, no buts, no asking the Lord what He really wants. No battling with the conscience (if you can afford 10% !)

    Make it simple to do you little bits and bobs for God and you feel good about yourself, you have little pride in your achievements and before you know it, you are into legalism and self-righteousness.

    If Hillsong and C3 didn’t teach tithing and instead made money simply from selling products etc, and if they weren’t busy trying to buy up property and keeping the money in material assets rather than letting a lot more cash flow to the poor … I think it would be much better spiritually for them and the critics would have no legs left to stand on.

    Primarily, I do believe that BH and PP would be much better off spiritually if they lived modestly. They don’t live modestly but have a jet-setting lifestyle. OK, not nearly so bling as Benny Hinn but hey … one layover hotel bill for Benny is like my annual take-home pay. No one makes as much money from poor African Christians than Benny.

    😦

  62. @ Kipling – they do preach a type of Jesus, but as @ Bull said above the message of the good news of Christ becomes totally distorted. Therefore are they preaching the Jesus of the bible? What is your opinion on this?

  63. @Bull…The claim was that Hillsong and C3 are Christless Christians. That is what I am questioning. So far no one has succeeded in producing a shred of evidence. Case closed.

    Tithing has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and I have made my position clear on this. Neither is Pentecostal Oneness a serious issue, just a sidetrack. Most denominations display some aspect of belief which is not Biblical, or can be shown to be error. This doesn’t make them Christless, just wrong about something.

    To be Christless, they must deny Christ. This cannot be attributed to Hillsong or C3.

    Case dismissed!

  64. “To be Christless, they must deny Christ. This cannot be attributed to Hillsong or C3.”

    To be Christless, they must deny Christ. This cannot be attributed to (among others) Jehovas Witnesses, Mormons and Muslims….

    Well I guess I better start breaking open that book of Mormon, Watchtower Society Magazines, the Quran and the Hadiths – I have alot of catching up to do….

    Kipling – you are a lightweight 🙂

  65. You wish!

    Case dismissed due to lazy research, lack of evidence, and the will to furnish anything like proof, followed by a cliché cartoon lapse.

    Where have you once shown that Hillsong or C3 are Christless. Even Bull admits to that, and he supported your right to be bad mannered!

  66. If I’m lightweight you’re a vacuum!

    Where’s your proof? Any proof. One little byte of proof? One twitter? One message which proves they lack Christ?

    Nowhere! Nothing! Zip!

    You can’t even lean on cults for an argument, as if they had anything whatsoever to do with it.

    Hollow, vacuous, empty, void!

    We’re still waiting!

    You won’t find it. It’s not there. You just can’t admit it.

    The longer this goes on without proof, the worse it looks for you.

  67. Hmm. Oneness pentecostals deny the Jesus of the Bible.

    Yet you said “Neither is Pentecostal Oneness a serious issue” so I guess their salvation is not a serious issue.

    How can that possibly be a side issue? Muslims also believe in the Virgin Birth, the miracles and the ascension of Jesus. The Muslim prophet attempted to absorb Christianity and Judaism into his growing religion. He got nowhere with that so that’s when the “kill the infidels” stuff got added.

    ok … this isn’t really getting us anywhere, other than to say that hanging out with blatant heretics and apostates isn’t a problem. Or is a problem.

    Hmm. Dunno. Confused now. Is it ok to say that all roads lead to God?

  68. Kipling, the point is as much as a Mormon, JW, Muslim says that they “understand” Christ (and they will argue that they do until they are blue in the face) the defacto-reality is that they “deny” Christ (the ultimate arbiter on the issue being the Holy Scriptures)…

    you struggle with this distinction because you have a man-centred gospel where it is up to the individual to make a consumer-like decison for Christ by means of emotional manipulation and persuasion – therefore the mega-churches who have the means and the ability the slickness and the budget ($$$$) to “market” christianity to the masses, obviously appear to be the most effective…..

    I was a mega-church, tounges blabbering, smells & bells loving, pentecostal myself in my younger years I know the deceit well…. it is not Christianity…

  69. Bull, with respect, you’re not following the thread. Oneness doctrine is not a serious issue to this discussion, is what I meant.

    Again, ELD has said categorically that Hillsong and C3 are Christless.

    They are certainly not Oneness Pentecostals. Nor are they Mormons, nor JW’s, nor any other Christ-diminishing, Trinity-denying cult. You would have to agree on this, would you not?

    ELD made the argument that Jakes was not Trinitarian, which Jakes openly disputes, to argue, by weak association, that Hillsong is, therefore, non-Trinitarian.

    But we know that Hillsong is part of the ACC (AOG) in Australia, which holds both to the Trinity and deity of Christ, and is consistent in this, and we know that C3 holds to accepted, orthodox Trinity doctrine, and to the deity of Christ, so we can dismiss this as any kind argument.

    This, then is a peripheral argument, baseless, and without life.

    If ELD is attempting to say that Hillsong or C3 deny the Trinity, or the deity of Christ, he is patently wrong. He has to show it from their teachings to have any case, but has not.

    We can easily show from the teaching of Oneness Pentecostals that their view of the Trinity is unorthodox, but even they do not deny the deity of Christ, clearly. We can show that JWs deny both the Trinity and the deity of Christ, as do Mormons. But, as shown already, they have nothing whatsoever to do with this argument.

    We don’t need this as an argument because they have nothing to do with Hillsong or C3.

    What ELD needs to show is that Hillsong or C3 are Christless. he can’t. They’re not.
    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    ELD, ‘you struggle with this distinction because you have a man-centred gospel where it is up to the individual to make a consumer-like decison for Christ by means of emotional manipulation and persuasion – therefore the mega-churches who have the means and the ability the slickness and the budget ($$$$) to “market” christianity to the masses, obviously appear to be the most effective…..’

    I do not. I totally refute your claim. It is absolutely wrong. And here you go, because you lack evidence, attempting to change the subject, to distract us from your quandary.

    Again, you don’t have any evidence whatsoever of what I do say or believe. You are merely floundering in a space of nothingness.

    You have, with this, also attempted, as previously, to make this personal.

    I can unequivocally say to you, and have already, that I hold to the Nicene Creed on the Trinity, and to the deity of Christ. I do not struggle with any of the so-called distinctions you have raised. I preach a Christ-centered gospel, and have already clearly outlined it on this thread, using Galatians, as Bull requested.

    Now, stop waffling on, and produce something real and direct for a change, or give up.

    Give us some real facts, directly associating Hillsong or C3 with being Christless. You haven’t, because you can’t. If you had something you would have produced it by now.

    I personally think your argument is a dead parrot. It is no more. It is deceased. It’s a stiff!

  70. And, Bull, I don’t think Oneness Pentecostals deny the Jesus of the Bible. They have an unorthodox view of the Trinity.

    It has nothing to do with whether Hillsong or C3 are Christless or not.

  71. I am afraid that we shall have to disagree on that. An unorthodox view on the trinity (which is taught from both old and new testaments incidentally) demonstrates an unclear understanding of God and therefore presents a different Jesus.

    If anyone presents a different Jesus, let him be accursed.

    Where exactly was God when Jesus walked the Earth? This is a major stumbling block for OP’s. How can Jesus pray to the Father? Difficult problem for OP’s to explain away.

    TD Jakes is a godless heretic as he comes out of OP but still thinks it’s perfectly fine.

    Sorry.

    No.

    That guy is a major problem for the true church. So why invite him to your conference. Well the answer is he’s a big name. Draws the crowds. In a word … cher-ching!!!!

    I’d really rather have Benny Hinn come to my Church … 😦

  72. Sabellianism/modalism is an ancient H E R E S Y and a NON-TRINITARIAN belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.

    AGAIN….

    How do you talk about the deity of Christ without talking about the Trinity?? – as you are aware, the groups that you by default call non-christian (JW’s, Mormons, Muslims) all share the one common thread as their defining doctrines – anti-trinitarianism and denial of the deity of Christ.

    The harmony that exists between the various doctrines of the Christian faith is such that error in regard to any one of them produces more or less distortion in all the others – hence when you interefer with and go beyond what IS WRITTEN you end up with error

  73. You obviously don’t read what I write, Bull and ELD. Or completely ignore anything which refutes your claims. Focus, please!

    I have comprehensively dealt with your claims of Oneness and anti-Trinitarianism from the equation over and over. You have persisted with it because it’s all you have.

    Again:

    Hillsong is of ACC (AOG) in Australia, which holds to the Trinity, and to the deity of Christ. C3 also holds to the Trinity, and to the deity of Christ.

    Both would affirm the Nicene Creed. As do I.

    That is why I said in the first place, at the beginning of this discussion, it was a non-issue. They believe in the Trinity.

    Neither is modalist, Oneness Pentecostal, or anti-Trinitarian. Anyone who has ever had association with them for any length of time will know this.

    It is a non-issue, raised by ELD as a limp charge with no substance.

    Real proof, please.

  74. OK, since you have nothing further to add in regard to your claims that Hillsong and C3 are Christless, I’ll assume you’ve moved on, and that discussion is closed, and you agree they are not, in fact, Christless.
    •••••••••••••••••••

    The accompanying discussion is interesting, however, and I will comment when I have time, on the need to adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved.

  75. ELD…‘you struggle with this distinction because you have a man-centred gospel where it is up to the individual to make a consumer-like decison for Christ by means of emotional manipulation and persuasion’.

    This is an interesting statement because it completely avoids the need for a person to acknowledge three essential points in conversion – sin, righteousness and judgement.

    ‘Sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.’

    The very first part of this blows away your claim. People are in sin because they do not believe in Jesus. They cannot be saved without faith in Jesus. “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

    This is so numerously outlined in the New Testament it would take too long to cover every scripture, but I can tell you it is an essential part of the gospel I preach, which makes it very much Christ-centred.

    In fact, it is a very tough decision for most people, because, contrary to your consumerist claims, most people are faced with what they have to give up materially, socially and emotionally, not what they have to gain, which we know is right standing with the Father, and eternal life, but the struggle in conversion is generally the emotional battle with materialism.

    This, again, deals a blow to your theory.

    It’s quite amazing how many people, at the point of conversion, realise they are faced with a complete change of lifestyle, which is, of course, repentance kicking in.

    We can see this illustrated in the way Jesus talked to the rich young ruler about his wealth, how it would be a distraction and sticking point to following Christ, so he would have to give it all away. He so desperately wanted to follow Jesus, but materialism won the day, or religion, because I think he had religious motives for being sen to be piously righteous rather than a desire to give away everything and follow.

    Most people have that struggle in some way or other, because they know that following Christ means losing their life.

    How do they know this? Because, as we preach the good news of glad tidings, the Holy Spirit is at work with us convincing them of sin, righteousness and judgement.

    So, is this, as you claim, emotional manipulation and persuasion? Persuasion, yes, because we are called to compel the unsaved to come to Christ through the preaching of the gospel. I don’t know what you call preaching if it is not a form of persuasion.

    It is not manipulation in a negative sense, but there is more than one meaning to manipulation. I can handle a pen and manipulate it to create writing. Manipulate means to handle or control an object, typically in a skilful manner. Is preaching the gospel a skill by which we, working alongside the Holy Spirit, turn someone’s heart from sin to righteousness?

    Is it emotional? In part, because it is the soul; the mind, the will and the emotions; which mostly rebel against repentance when the gospel is preached. There is a struggle between heaven and earth when a sinner hears the gospel preached. “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.”

    But mostly it is spiritual, because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe.

  76. “We can see this illustrated in the way Jesus talked to the rich young ruler about his wealth, how it would be a distraction and sticking point to following Christ, so he would have to give it all away. He so desperately wanted to follow Jesus, but materialism won the day, or religion, because I think he had religious motives for being sen to be piously righteous rather than a desire to give away everything and follow.”

    Kipling, I understand what you are saying and I agree in part with your exegesis of this scripture – but you have really missed thrust of it….

    This is precisiely what I am getting at with Hillsong & C3 – given this text they would summarise its content to the extent that you have explained it and as a result, totally miss the point of the text….

  77. That’s just nit-picking, ELD.

    You’d do the same to Paul for saying Isaiah’s reference to people of different tongues had anything to do with speaking in the tongues of the New Testament, when it actually referred, in context, to the Assyrian army’s attack on Israel. He obviously saw something else in it to the actual context. There are other illustrations like this, but I don’t have time to dig them out for you.

    I was just using a scripture to help illustrate the struggle people have at conversion. The choice they have to make between this world and the next, including material connections. If you think this isn’t referenced, in part, in this passage you are also missing something.

    The truth is that there can be multiple applications, outside of the direct historical context, to many passages in scripture.

  78. Yes…ok Kipling but you have just taken yourself on adventure in missing the point – thats all…. 🙂

  79. and we all know these prosperity gospel leaders such as Ed Young, Jakes, Kong Hee, hillsong (brian houston, joel houston, bobbie houston), Furtick, et al are all heretics. We all know what’s going on with Kong Hee as truth has been revealed about him and his ministry. Crazy televangelists! There’s always something happening in these circles. You see one, and you’ve seen them all.

Comments are closed.