Well, at least he admits it!
Read more commentary here.
The notion that morality is merely external underlies all forms of hypocrisy. It is the very error Jesus decried in His exposition of the moral law in the Sermon on the Mount. The central lesson He underscored was this: External appearance is not what matters most. The proper focus of the moral law is the heart, not merely external behavior.
Jesus' exposition of the law is a devastating blow against the lie that image is everything. Our Lord taught repeatedly that sin bottled up on the inside, concealed from everyone else's view, carries the very same guilt as sin that manifests itself in the worst forms of ungodly behavior. Those who hate others are as guilty as those who act out their hatred; and those who indulge in private lusts are as culpable as wanton adulterers (Matt. 5:21-30).
So Christians are not to think of secret sins as somehow less serious and more respectable than the sins everyone sees.Continue reading here.
Let us beware of unscriptural expectations. If we expect to see people of one heart and one mind, before they are converted, we shall continually be disappointed. Thousands of well-meaning persons now-a-days are continually crying out for more "unity" among Christians. To attain this they are ready to sacrifice almost anything, and to throw overboard even sound doctrine, if, by so doing, they can secure peace. Such people would do well to remember that even gold may be bought too dear, and that peace is useless if purchased at the expense of truth. Surely they have forgotten the words of Christ, "I came not to send peace, but division."
Many talk vaguely about "unity," and "harmony," and "peace" in the Church of Christ, as if they were things that we ought always to expect, and for the sake of which everything ought to be sacrificed! Such persons would do well to remember the words of our Lord. No doubt unity and peace are mighty blessings; we ought to seek them, pray for them, and give up everything in order to obtain them, excepting truth and a good conscience: but it is an idle dream to suppose that the Churches of Christ will enjoy much of unity and peace before the millennium comes (emphasis added).Ryle's words could have been written yesterday, for they are just as timely and applicable today as when they were first penned. Indeed, some days it seems as though it won't be long until a "Christianized" version of the "COEXIST" bumper sticker is created and distributed among today's professing Christians. In a time of "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," and pachyderm-esque gatherings, we must be ever-vigilant that the truth of God's Word and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ are never compromised at the expense of fleeting unity. How many have been deceived all the way to Hell with the cry of "peace" and "unity" on their lips! Stand firm, then, on the only thing which we can know to be true: the Word of God.
Oprah Winfrey, appearing in New York City during the Monday broadcast of her "Lifeclass," professed to being a Christian twice during her introduction, which one publication took as evidence of her confession in Christ. The Black Christian News Network suggested that Winfrey was a "secret follower" of Jesus and those critical of Winfrey's confession were akin to Pharisees. (Source)The opinion piece generated by Black Christian News Network (BCNN) reads as follows:
Well, she has made it clear to her millions of fans. Here is the profession of faith that Oprah made last night, April 23, 2012, at her lifeclass in New York City before the entire world for the glory of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Here is what she said:
"I am not talking about religion. I am a Christian. That is my faith. I'm not asking you to be a Christian. If you wanna be one, I can show you how. But it is not required. I have respect for all faiths...""...My favorite Bible verse, because I am a Christian, is Acts 17:28. It says, 'In God I live, and move, and have my being.'Now we know that some people are going to doubt Oprah's profession of faith in Christ and some are going to say negative things about this because she has different people of different faiths on her show and so forth. But before you Pharisees say all of that, please understand that OWN is not a Christian network. It is a network for all people. OWN is Oprah's business, and we as Christians know what that is like when you're doing business in a secular world. So Oprah's business side is going to be different, but it does not take anything away from her faith in Christ.
(Source)Unfortunately, BCNN is a bit confused. The issue is not regarding the fact that OWN is a secular business and that Winfrey keeps it separate from her supposed faith in Christ. The reason that many so-called "Pharisees" will "doubt Oprah's profession of faith in Christ" is because she has yet to give any indication that she actually believes in the Jesus of the Bible. Throughout her entire career, Oprah Winfrey has not merely interviewed leaders, authors and influential people with differing faiths or religions. No, she has actually promoted their aberrant teachings and has thus proven that her own version of "christianity" is a bizarre amalgamation of Eastern mysticism and New Age thought with a thin veneer of a few vague Christian-sounding terms tossed in for good measure.
Winfrey, during "Oprah's Lifeclass: The Tour" broadcast from New York City's Radio City Music Hall, greeted the audience in the packed auditorium and informed them that the lifeclass theme would be "Spiritual Solutions" as taught by New Age figure Deepak Chopra.
She added, "My definition [of spirituality] is living your life with an open heart, through love... allowing yourself to align with the values of tolerance, acceptance, of harmony, of cooperation and reverence for life. "There is a force energy consciousness divine thread, I believe, that connects spiritually to all of us, to something greater than ourselves."
(Source, emphasis added)With the emboldened statement above, Winfrey already has invalidated her claim to being a Christian. There is no biblical grounds for the idea of a "force energy consciousness divine thread" that connects all of us to one another and ultimately connects us to God. This is New Age spirituality, and it is not compatible with biblical Christianity.
She also commented on what has made her successful, and shared a favorite Bible passage.
"My favorite Bible verse – because I am Christian – is Acts..something... it says [in Acts 17:28] 'in God I live and move and have my being.' And you want to know why I'm so successful? Because I knew that at four-years-old," Winfrey told her audience.
(Source)There is a slight irony in the fact that, in this particular verse, Paul is actually quoting the Cretan poet Epimenides. In preaching about this passage, John MacArthur stated:
He's simply saying that natural revelation is so obvious that your own poets can see it though they attached it to the wrong god.
That's a powerful point. That's powerful substantiation. Paul has been trying to say, "God is revealed in nature. You can see God in nature. You can know He's Creator, Giver, Sustainer, Controller. And look, your own poets recognize there must be a God Who does all of this. Even though they don't know who it is. And so they are living proof, Epimedides and Aradus. That much revelation is inherent in all men and that God is obvious even to the pagan. Boy, what a powerful point. And right from their own Greek poets. Paul was a master at making the most of the situation. And so it's a powerful illustration then of God's universal revelation that He is Creator, Sustainer and the God of providence, and even their poets can see it.
Now, he takes it a step further. Because, you see, some, like those poets, just stopped there. They said, "Hey, God is." There is. And they said, "God is Creator. God is Sustainer or Ruler. God is Giver." And all along the line "God is Providence." Oh, yes, God is. Sure, Epimenides knew that. They didn't know which god, but they knew there was a god, and they knew that god was this. But that's where they stopped.
Paul says you've got to go further than that. You've got to go further than that. You've got to go past God is and Who God is and you've got to come up with What God is saying. And they never did. You know, there are a lot of people like that. They believe God is. And they believe God is Creator, God is Sustainer. Like those Greek poets. But they don't know God. And so they worship a non-God. It's sad to see somebody come that far, isn't it. You know, that's true of the pagans. You go to some countries and you see them worshipping false gods at totum poles. You know, they believe God is, they believe God is Creator, Sustainer and all that, but they just have the wrong God.
(Source)When this passage is read in its full context, then, one can see that one of the points that the Apostle Paul was trying to emphasize was that all men, by means of natural revelation, are aware of the existence of a God. What Paul definitively was not saying, was that acknowledging the existence of a god would bring earthly success. The Apostle is also not claiming that each man possesses a "divine thread" or god-consciousness, as Oprah Winfrey has implied in her statements.
Once again, Joel Osteen has delivered a false and damning gospel to the world.
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:13-14)
The fact is that as we remember this man, we remember someone who labored to strike a significant blow against the gospel, and who time and again called on the church to do the same. And this is what is absent in so many remembrances. He labored for good and positive causes, but he also labored for outright sinful causes. (Source)Charles Colson was a leader and drafter of the 1994 document Evangelicals and Catholics Together. In essence, this document undermined the Reformation as it affirmed that there was little difference between the gospel of Roman Catholicism and the gospel of the Reformation (i.e., the Biblical Gospel). Sadly, as noted by Challies, the obituary for Colson found at The Gospel Coalition actually seems to celebrate his efforts with ECT. Both Dr. James White and Dr. John MacArthur offered extensive responses to ECT at the time of its appearance. White states:
The document also asserts "All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ." This is probably the key affirmation of the document, and everything else hinges upon this statement. We could wish to ask what the authors mean by "accept Christ as Lord and Savior," and if this would also include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Bahais. Given the fact that the Apostle's Creed is included as a basic confession that all sides can accept, we would suspect that they would exclude these groups. But if a Mormon understands the Apostle's Creed in an LDS-fashion, would they then have to accept this confession, and embrace such a person as a brother or sister in Christ? Such problems are glossed over by the document. But most importantly, every other issue, including, as we shall see, the very nature of the gospel itself, is subjugated under the affirmation that "Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ." No amount of doctrinal difference can do away with the ultimate belief that Evangelicals and Catholics are both Christians, and are both members of the Body of Christ. (Source)In 2009, Colson appeared at the helm of the drafting of another ecumenical document, The Manhattan Declaration. This document, though standing against social ills such as homosexual marriage and abortion, did so at the expense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In his response to The Manhattan Declaration, John MacArthur explains:
Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message. (Source)As MacArthur would later state in a radio interview on Chris Fabry Live, "I just don't think you fight the spiritual war by conceding ground to the enemy and redefining him as your friend."
Fabry brought up the oft-neglected (by MacDonald, anyway) elephant of T.D. Jakes' prosperity gospel. In this part of the discussion, James MacDonald indicated that a private conversation had taken place (among whom, we do not know, though it is obvious that it was at least allegedly between MacDonald and Jakes). During this conversation, says MacDonald, T.D. Jakes expressed that he would "not currently accept the designation of prosperity or Word of Faith as an accurate description of what he believes. [...] As of two weeks ago [Jakes] would not accept these terms in a private conversation as an accurate description of what he believes." MacDonald continued and stated that Jakes' "ministry will have to bear that out." (Source)In light of these statements, one must wonder how MacDonald would respond to the following video:
Q was birthed out of Gabe Lyons’ vision to see Christians, especially leaders, recover a vision for their historic responsibility to renew and restore cultures. Inspired by Chuck Colson’s statement, “Christians are called to redeem entire cultures, not just individuals,” Gabe set out to reintroduce Christians to what had seemed missing in recent decades from an American expression of Christian faithfulness; valuing both personal and cultural renewal, not one over the other. Re-educating Christians to this orthodox and unifying concept has become central to the vision of Q.
We believe that inherent in Christian faithfulness is the responsibility to create a better world, one that reflects God’s original design and intention.
Seven years ago, I was twenty-seven years old and embarrassed to call myself Christian. This was especially odd because I was raised in a Christian home, graduated from a Christian college, and then served as vice president of a prominent Christian organization. By all accounts, I should have been one of Christianity's biggest fans.
Unfortunately, I began to notice that the perceptions my friends and neighbors had about Christians were incredibly negative. In fact, their past experiences with anything labeled Christian had sent them running in the opposite direction. Ironically, I came to empathize with their views. Having grown up in a Christian bubble myself, I witnessed countless instances when the lives of Christ followers were incongruent with Jesus's [sic] call to be loving, engaged, sacrificial, unselfish, and compassionate contributors to culture. The angst these experiences created would scare anyone from taking a second look at Jesus.
Research shows that over 76 percent of Americans self-identify as Christian. Yet I wonder how many of us are proud to carry that label. Are we hiding our faith in our back pockets? My guess is that many feel much like I did at twenty-seven when they encounter non-Christians at work, in coffee shops, on campus, in their neighborhoods, at weekend parties, or working out at the gym. The Next Christians, 5It's true, there are many people who tout the title of "Christian," yet behave in a rather abysmal manner. Yet, does this justify an attitude of embarrassment at being identified with Christ? Should the Christian bow to the world if the world perceives Christianity unfavorably?
And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:34-38, ESV, emphasis added
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. John 15:18-21, ESV
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. 1 John 2:15-17, ESVThe Christian should not expect to be celebrated or embraced by the world. If, then, a Christian is reluctant to claim and name the name of Jesus Christ, is the issue really with the true Christian faith, or does the problem lie elsewhere?
I've observed a new generation of Christians who feel empowered. Restorers exhibit the mind-set, humility, and commitment that seem destined to rejuvenate the momentum of the faith. They have a peculiar way of thinking, being, and doing that is radically different from previous generations. Telling others about Jesus is important, but conversion isn't their only motive. Their mission is to infuse the world with beauty, grace, justice, and love. I call them restorers because they envision the world as it was meant to be and they work toward that vision. Restorers seek to mend earth's brokenness. They recognize that the world will not be completely healed until Christ's return, but they believe that the process begins now as we partner with God. Through sowing seeds of restoration, they believe others will see Christ through us and the Christian faith will reap a much larger harvest. The Next Christians, 43, emphasis added.This "restorer" mindset permeates the efforts of Q. Writing on the Q website in a lengthy article entitled, "Influencing Culture," and quoting Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey's book, How Now Shall We Live, Lyons writes:
Ultimately, it was Colson's explanation of the cultural mandate that grabbed my mind and my heart: ... "Our job is not only to build up the church but also to build a society to the glory of God. As agents of God's common grace, we are called to help sustain and renew his creation, to uphold the created institutions of family and society, to puruse science and scholarship, to create works of art and beauty, and to heal and help those suffering from the results of the Fall." SourceUnfortunately, Lyons offers no Scripture to support this statement. As the article progresses, Gabe Lyons speaks about the great "conversion moments" in history, such as the First and Second Great Awakening in England and America, respectively. He seems to believe that the traveling evangelists offered only a "half-story" of the Gospel by not remaining in one place and "modeling the life of a Christian over the course of years."
It’s easy to see that when forced to convey the most dramatic parts of the Christian story in a short period of time, parts of the story are easily overlooked. In the process, Christianity was losing its profound and life-giving answers to central questions no longer representing an entire life-system and worldview. It had become relegated to a personal, spiritual decision about where you would spend the afterlife. As more evangelical Christians adopted this half-story explanation of the faith, their cultural influence began to fade. The emphasis on heavenly pursuits overshadowed the idea of living a life that offered common grace and promoted cultural influence. SourceAs Lyons' essay continues, the reader will begin to realize that one of two things is happening: either Gabe Lyons does not believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is enough for salvation and redemption, or he has adopted a skewed understanding of the Gospel, believing that it extends beyond one's individual standing before God. From the quotes already examined, it seems obvious that the latter is true. Lyons continues:
The idea of culture shaping is widely debated. Most people, and until recently myself included, implicitly believe that cultures are changed from the bottom-up and that to “change our culture, we need more and more individuals possessing the right values and therefore making better choices.”The problem is that it is only part of the solution. In a widely distributed briefing that was presented to The Trinity Forum called To Change the World, James Davison Hunter asserts, “It is this view of culture that also leads some faith communities to evangelism as their primary means of changing the world. If people’s hearts and minds are converted, they will have the right values, they will make the right choices, and the culture will change in turn.”
Hunter goes on to say, “…the renewal of our hearts and minds is not only important, it is essential, indeed a precondition for a truly just and humane society. But by itself, it will not accomplish the objectives and ideals we hope for.”18 This could explain why Christianity as it is practiced by many well meaning, admirable Christians in the past decades has failed to have significant traction.
business, government, media, church, arts & entertainment, education and the social sector. Their combined output of ideas, films, books, theology, websites, restaurants, investments, social work, laws, medical breakthroughs and technology drive an entire nation. SourceThe astute reader will notice that these spheres of influence bear a striking similarity to the "seven mountains" of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). While Gabe Lyons is not (to this writer's knowledge) involved specifically with the NAR movement, it is nevertheless interesting to note that the NAR holds to similar goals in seeking to redeem the culture. This simply demonstrates how widespread this particular false gospel has become.
In thirty years, the idea of being gay had moved from being commonly viewed as abnormal and abhorrent in society, to being an acceptable and normal alternative life-style. This illustrates perfectly the potential for cultural influence to happen when leaders throughout the seven channels of culture work together towards a common goal. SourceThe misunderstanding that Christians and the Church have been commissioned to redeem and renew this earth and its cultures may lead to a disparaging view of the true mission of the Church. As a reminder, Christians have been called by Christ Himself to share the Gospel, calling sinners to repentance and faith in Christ alone for salvation. When the focus is turned away from Christ and His atoning work, and fixed instead on this temporal, transient and dying world, then the Church loses its effectiveness. Unfortunately, Gabe Lyons through his movement of Q is seemingly fixing his gaze upon the wrong thing. He says,
Sadly, by focusing on just the “spiritual” and the afterlife, the Christian church has strayed away from its potential influence in the here and now, positioning itself instead as just another subculture. SourceIn response to the great gift of salvation in Christ, the Christian will undoubtedly bear fruit that manifests itself in "good works," yet those good works are not the Gospel. To call the Church to put its energy into the "here and now" seems to contradict many exhortations within Scripture to "set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth" (Col. 3:2). Indeed, the believer is told that this earth will one day pass away, and that God will create a New Heavens and a New Earth.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
2 Peter 3:10-14, ESVSo, why the concern? Why write such a lengthy article discussing some of the dangers of Q and of its founder, Gabe Lyons? After all, not many Christians were even aware that the event was taking place! Yet, the mindset and the doctrines of Q, which denigrate and downplay the Gospel of Jesus Christ, are beginning to permeate evangelicalism. Among the speakers in years past at the Q conference have been men like Brian McLaren and Rick Warren. In his speech, Warren told the audience that, "You are the message. You are incarnating Jesus in the world" (video can be viewed here). Are we really the message? Or is the message of salvation found in Jesus Christ?
Collegiate leaders invest a tremendous amount of time in the lives of college students, be it one-on-one coffee conversations, small group Bible studies, or conferences and events. But even the best leaders need some time to recharge. Collegiate Summit is an event just for leaders, and a perfect opportunity to fellowship with peers, worship, and renew their energy and focus.
Collegiate Summit is an interactive event that allows attendees to share insights, get new ideas, and learn from each other. Large group sessions feature leading teachers like Jon Acuff, Gabe Lyons, and Pete Wilson, as well as music from Dove Award-winning songwriter and worship leader Michael Boggs. Breakout sessions focus on specific topics and allow leaders to network, make new friends, and encourage each other.
Yet in so doing, it seems to me that such ministries are conceding the importance of presence – of real, physical presence – to the gathering of the church. They are also begging the question: why have a real band when the most important thing, the preaching, can be beamed in? Or is it that the preaching is no longer the most important thing?
The preacher who pipes himself in to numerous sites needs to ask himself if, by doing so, he loses the key elements of subtle dialogue and direct confrontation with a physically present congregation which are so important; the congregation satisfied with a video pastor needs to ask if its satisfaction is in part related to the absence of the man, an absence which inevitably tames that confrontational element which is such an important part of what Luther called ‘the word which comes from outside.’
While the Scripture commands us in 1 Peter 5:2 to shepherd the flock of God, Ephesians 4 instructs that the pastor-teacher is to equip the saints for the works of ministry, rather than hoarding those responsibilities personally. Those who are effective in that duty frequently see their congregation grow beyond the number that one pastor could shepherd anyway.
In the multi-site model, the primary preacher has entrusted the direct discipling and care of the majority to other pastors and volunteers. But that same thing happens in a church with more than 200, regardless of how many services or locations they gather in. To argue that a church cannot be shepherded biblically unless all the sheep appear to see you preach live, simply denies that reality.
|Photo: WikiMedia Commons|
A new report released by NORC at the University of Chicago, “Beliefs About God Across Time And Countries” measures belief in God in 30 countries around the world, and how those beliefs in God have changed over time. The survey asked three questions to determine whether the respondents were atheists, agnostics, deists, waivers, weak believers, strong believers, whether their beliefs about God had changed over time, and whether they believe in a personal God. (Source)Okay, they asked questions about a generic belief in a generic god. Great. I can see this is going to be enlightening. The article closes by saying,
While belief in God has decreased in most countries, researchers find that the shift is modest. The researchers suggest that it is equally possible that belief in God will continue to decline, or that belief in God will become more widespread as it has in Russia, Latvia and Slovenia. (Source)So, the conclusion to this report is that belief in "God" will either decline or increase. Uh huh. Got it. Is anyone else curious just how much money it cost to conduct this study?
#1 – We are answering questions that no one else is asking.
I’m glad that we can debate theology and know terms that make us seem intelligent and cause other people to scratch their heads; however, at the end of the day people are not asking about the five points of Calvinism, the trichotomy or dichotomy of the Spirit or the peccability/impeccability of Christ! They are asking “why is my life falling apart?” Or, “how do I get past the fact that I was sexually molested when I was eight?” Or, “how do I, as a single mom, lead and provide for my family?”
Too many people are so obsessed with their theological labels, I believe, so that they don’t actually have to do real ministry! (Source)
Note: Perry Noble's post continues, however, he chose to use some rather colorful language in a few places, so the reader is warned to be watchful of this if you choose to follow the link above.This goes back to the erroneous "Jesus didn't die for correct theology" argument. Yet, it seems as though Perry Noble is missing a key point. If a pastor is teaching the Bible, God's Word, then things like total depravity, justification, substitutionary atonement, the Trinity, the nature of God and Christ, etc. will come up. The church does not exist as a counseling center for people who are going through a rough time! Rather, the Church exists to preach the whole counsel of God, and to share with people the hopelessness of their lost, sinful state, and then to point them to Jesus Christ, who offers salvation from sin, death, and the righteous wrath of a holy God!
The Voice helps people connect with Scripture, so it can impact their lives. It's ideal for those who are interested in spirituality, and want their spirituality to be real in their lives and relationships. The Voice helps them to encounter "the glory of the Lord" and be "transformed by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18). (Source)This latest translation, however, makes some interesting omissions from the well-known Biblical text. USA Today reports:
The name Jesus Christ doesn't appear in The Voice, a new translation of the Bible. Nor do words such as angel or apostle. Instead, angel is rendered as messenger and apostle as emissary. Jesus Christ is Jesus the Anointed One or the liberating king.
That's a more accurate translation for modern American readers, says David Capes, lead scholar for The Voice, a complete edition released this month by publishing company Thomas Nelson. Capes says that many people, even those who've gone to church for years, don't realize that the word "Christ" is a title. "
They think that Jesus is his first name and Christ is his last name," says Capes, who teaches the New Testament at Houston Baptist University in Texas.
(Source)Reporting on this same story, the Christian Post notes:
Frank Couch, Thomas Nelson's lead editor on the project, told The Christian Post that the purpose of The Voice was to make the Gospel message easier to understand for modern audiences.
"The Voice has not claimed to be more accurate than any other translation, rather it is more easily understood than any other translation," said Couch.
(Source)The Voice, published by Thomas Nelson, first appeared in 2008 as The Voice New Testament. Upon initial publication, the new translation was not without critics. Chris Rosebrough, Christian apologist and host of the radio show, Fighting for the Faith, expressed his concerns over this translation early on. A primary consideration for Rosebrough was the fact that the creative writing team for The Voice boasts several key leaders in the Emergent Church, including Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle, Leonard Sweet and Chris Seay.
So Barabbas is a significant person in the gospel account, chiefly because he is the living embodiment of a helpless, hopeless sinner who is spared from condemnation—even given an undeserved place of privilege—just because Christ took his place on the cross. Barabbas is a flesh-and-blood symbol of every redeemed sinner. In a true and literal sense, he could say "Christ died for [my] sins"—and he was no doubt the very first person to whom it might have occurred to make a confession like that. During those dark hours while the crucifixion drama was playing our, while the disciples were confused and scattered, while even those closest to Jesus wondered at the meaning of it all, Barabbas was already fully aware (in a unique and particular sense) that Jesus was dying in his place. I'm not suggesting he knew this with the full conviction of saving faith. But in a rudimentary sense, he must have had some crude understanding of the principle that lies at the heart of the atonement—because in a literal, physical sense, Christ had taken his place on the cross, borne the condemnation that was due Barabbas, and made it possible for Barabbas to go free—all without any work or merit on Barabbas's part. He did not deserve the favor he was shown.
To listen to this sermon in its entirety, or to read the transcript, visit here.
That is what the gospel is all about. The cross is the heart of the gospel message.
The above-mentioned article further explained the Word Faith teachings of the various speakers at Presence 2012, including Phil and Chris Pringle, Kong Hee and John Bevere. That post then noted the following:We believe that as we gather together at Presence the heavens will be opened over your life and you will experience a greater outpouring of his anointing, blessing, vision and miracles. (Online Source)
Knowing all of this, then, what ought one think of Steven Furtick's involvement in Presence 2012? Furtick has been lovingly embraced by leaders such as James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll. Yet, he has done little to hide his desire to grow his skills and influence among the Word Faith crowd. Furtick has lauded the work of infamous Word Faith teachers T.D. Jakes and Joyce Meyer. Many of Furtick's own sermons either hint at or in some instances, blatantly promote dangerous Word Faith teachings. His special invitation to speak at Presence 2012, then, ought not surprise. However, it still should elicit concern. With its language of a "fresh anointing," and "vision and miracles," Presence 2012 appears to go beyond the familiar Word Faith teachings of "health and wealth," and into the realm of signs, wonders and manifestations.So, just what did Steven Furtick preach at Presence 2012? The video below shares a few minutes of the conference on Thursday night, 12 April. (Additional videos of this event can be viewed at the YouTube channel for C3ChurchWatch). At this time, Steven Furtick was asked to preach prior to the offering. In doing so, he chose to share from 2 Kings 4. Contrasting the story of the poor widow in 2 Kings 4:1-7, with the story immediately following of the Shunammite woman, Furtick preached that those who don't have much to give (like the widow), ought to offer what they do have so that God may give them what they need. Conversely, those who may have much, but who want or need something that money cannot buy (just like the Shunammite woman desired a son), ought to give accordingly. Furtick teaches that "all you have is all God needs" to "set something in motion in your life." Says Furtick at around the 9:20 mark, "Put what you have and let God do what you need. Make room for God tonight in this offering to bring something into your life that you need." Ought one expect, then, that by not placing a check in the offering, God will refuse, or be unable, to work His will in one's life?
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
The Bible states in Proverbs 29:18 that “Where there is no vision, the people perish …” This is absolute truth. Churches that lack clear direction and vision are poorly funded because attenders have no clarity on how their sacrificial giving dollars will be used to accomplish the vision and build the Kingdom. Dr. John C. Maxwell has shared this incredible wisdom regarding this subject – “Where there is no vision, the people perish. And where there are no financial resources, the vision perishes. (Online Source)Of course, this is a common misuse of Proverbs 29:18 among seeker-driven pastors. Setting that fact aside for a moment, it is interesting to note that, in his pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus (and in all of his letters, for that matter), the Apostle Paul never once instructed the young leaders to propagate some personal, yet "God-given" vision. Even less did Paul teach them that they must have a divine "vision" in order to maintain financial resources.
Let me forgo a flowery introduction and make one thing clear at the outset of this article: I am not a feminist. I am not an egalitarian. I ...