The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Truth Project

Does any one have knowledge of the The Truth Project from Focus on the Family? I have been told by many people it is very good, but, for various reasons, I have always been a little wary of stuff from Focus on the Family. I saw a 10 minute preview for it which also re-enforced that feeling, but there was not enough in the preview to really lay my finger on anything in particular.

Thanks,
John

John,

Personally, I don't give much credence to what comes out of "Focus on the Family" either. It isn't that they don't have ANY truth, but rather it is so sparsely scattered throughout what they offer. Why waste my time on the 'threshing floor' reading/listening to their material when there are sooooo many other excellent sources of sound biblical teaching?

In His grace,

I agree, but this series is being heavily promoted at church, so I am trying to get some more concrete information about it.

John

John,

Here's something I found which should shed some light on "The Truth Project"... surprise, surprise!

Can you say, "lowest common denominator theology" three times quickly?

However, in that same section, they make this statement:

Thus, they take the semi-Pelagian/Arminian position that regeneration is the fruit and/or the result of a prior faith; something which we find absolutely impossible since dead people can't believe.

If you find anything you think is worth sharing about "The Truth Project" from your own research, please do post it here for the benefit of others.

In His grace,

Actually I couldn't find too much about the series. There are a few websites I found critical of "The Truth Project", but nothing from a reformed perspective. That's not to say the criticisms aren't valid.

I saw the third installment of the series "Anthropology" this weekend (I haven't seen the first two). Here are some of my impressions.

1. I found the tone of the speaker smug and somewhat condescending. I also felt some of the video clips were manipulative in that they seemed designed to evoke a particular emotional response.

2. I thought that the characterizations of the anti-Biblical positions were lacking. By that I mean that they were too simplistic and in some cases possibly misrepresented. I do not think this was intentional, but may just show a lack of preparation or in-depth understanding of the issues. I find this in many ways troubling because it is easy to rebut an opponents position when you don't represent it properly (straw-man fallacy). We all know that many rebuttals to Christianity rely on attacking commonly held views of the Bible instead of the true Biblical one. Also, the video tended to lump every anti-Biblical view into one camp when there are, in my opinion, a myriad of views.

3. I thought that the anti-Biblical position was in some ways made fun of. For example, when explaining the difference between the Biblical view of man that man is made in the image of God and the evolutional materialistic world-view of man that man is just material, the phrase of "Goo-man" was applied to the evolutional view. If you are debating someone who holds this view, I don't think these kind of childish rebuttals help.

4. One nit-pick. When going over the different states of man, the original state of man in the Garden was listed as "innocence". Although this is true, I think that God created man as truly good in his original state and not just innocent.

5. All that being said, there was still some good stuff in the video. However, it all seemed to be fairly basic, so I think this project is aimed at people who haven't given much thought or read about these issues (which makes the problems a little more dangerous as they may not be obvious).

John

John,

I am not arguing as I understand your concern.

Pelagius taught that every baby born into the world is born in the same state Adam was before his fall (innocent and without sin) and that we become sinners by imitation, Kinda like a blank piece of paper and then we sin.

However to say that Adams original state was a state of innocence alone and by itself is not wrong, it's confessional.



The Canons of Dordt
THIRD AND FOURTH HEADS OF DOCTRINE
Of the Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner Thereof.

Article 16. But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature, endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind, deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and its properties, neither does violence thereto; but spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it; that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign; in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore unless the admirable author of every good work wrought in us, man could have no hope of recovering from his fall by his own free will, by the abuse of which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin.


Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 21. Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first created him?

A. Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created.



William,

William,

I agree with you. I wasn't saying that the statement was incorrect, only that I thought more could have been said. Which leads one to ask the question, why was it left at just innocence. When watching the video, I got the feeling that the word "innocence" was chosen very deliberately.

The series states this about itself


With this purpose in mind is not the difference between "innocent" and "good" important?

Anyway, as I said, it was just a nit-pick.

John

The Truth project to me is a mixed bag.
I viewed a few of the YouTube videos that can be found at: and saw a few people such as RC Sproul and Albert Mohler who I have a lot of respect for.
In one of these videos the topic was Post Modernism and the Emergent church and their understanding of truth. I really enjoyed how this panel dealt with the matter. Postmodernism deals with the subject in a relativistic way, yet true Christianity says that when it comes to truth, it is too important to deny or be wishy-washy when it comes to truth.
The subjects of Calvinism verses Arminianism and homosexuality were used as examples in the video as things that we need to come to an objective Biblical understanding on.
Something that I noticed that Dr. Sproul said, that I like was: (Not an exact quote) "If you disagree with me concerning Calvinism, that is a concern, but the matter is too important just to sluff off." I watched the other members of the panel at this point and all nodded in agreement.
Focus on the Family is the ministry that puts this series on and something that concerns me about Focus on the Family other than being Arminian is the fact that they advocate legislative morality.
At this particular time, I really can not comment further because I haven’t read/seen anything that I can comment on further.

Tom

I think some people may be able to pick up some theology they never had before. However, they would probably come away with a better worldview just by studying a simple theology book like Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by RC Sproul or like the Heidelberg Catechism, or something like that.

I think verses were pulled out of their context to support certain ideas.

For instance Revelation 2:5 was used in tour #10 called the "The American Experiment".

Revelation 2
5Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.



The may be a verse about repentance but I cannot see how it can be used in the way Dr. Tackett used it. I am not sure if he was addressing the church in general to repent of their lack of care for America, so that God would not take away the lampstand...... but how does that work ? That verse is speaking to the Church of Ephesus and the preceding verses mean something that make that verse make sense.

That is precisely where I have a problem with this entire series. I think the spiritual kingdom is confused with the political kingdom.


There are some interesting tidbits of information about Darwinism, philosophy, and American History, but the application of this series is very confusing.

I don't really know why Sproul endorsed it. It seems to water down the theology in order to make it applicable to a broad audience. Things like the will of man, and God's sovereignty, are not taught well in this series.


I went looking for some answers about my own worldview and I bumped into a truth about God's Providence along the way. Sometimes God's providence is not delightful, such as Paul being shipwrecked. It still is God's providence.

I think the church needs to read the bible for what it says. Understand what it says about how to run a church and how to evangelize. Maybe if we relied on the preaching of God's Word, prayer, the sacraments, we might see change.

I think this worldview series will be outdated in no time. However, the scripture will still be relevant as always to all cultures, and people. It speaks to man about sin, grace, salvation, sanctification, glorification, providence. It tells us about Jesus Christ and the promises of God.

Our citizenship is in heaven.

Well that's what I think.