Donations for the month of September


We have received a total of "$75" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 95
Joined: April 2013
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,271
Posts53,180
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,021
Tom 4,035
chestnutmare 3,083
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 21
Tom 14
Ruben 9
Robin 2
Recent Posts
All Glory to God
by NetChaplain - Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:40 AM
Rage Against the Unvaccinated!
by tomatoetom - Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:24 AM
Strength via Weakness
by NetChaplain - Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:29 AM
Good News for a Change
by Pilgrim - Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:53 PM
Doxology
by chestnutmare - Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:41 AM
John 3:16 – Kosmos refers to "Believers Only"?
by Pilgrim - Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:25 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#15732 Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:22 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Our library gets the quarterly from RTS, and I noticed that, in the President's Message of the most recent issue, it says that RTS cooperates with Campus Crusade. They say that the seminary seeks to be "winsomely Reformed" in its evangelism, and yet they say they can do this through Campus Crusade <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
MarieP #15733 Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:06 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
RTS works with many different organizations--some are better than others. Remember RTS is NOT a Presbyterian seminary--though they embrace WCF and most of their professors/students are PCA (we had a Methodist student at the first of last year, but he is converted now. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />). RTS is run by a board as opposed to a church or pastors, professors, denom.....(which would make for an interesting topic of discussion). Their goal is to get RTS students into such organizations to enact "reformed" change. ...other areas that RTS is in: New Tribe Missions, Wycliffe, World Gospel Missions, etc.

RTS is by no means a perfect seminary (I personally question some of their philosophical ideals), but a still a great place for an education. Most of their professors are great (I have only been disappointed in 1 class out of the 20, or so, I have had this year).


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #15734 Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:21 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
I've heard it is a wonderful seminary. That's why I was surprised they cooperate with CCCI.

Speaking of seminaries in general, Sinclair Ferguson is going to be coming to speak here at Southern next year (as well as Ligon Duncan and Alister Begg) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Ferguson will be speaking at the ETS conference. Is anyone on the discussion board planning on attending?


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
MarieP #15735 Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
An impressive list of speakers--WOW. Ferguson is a great speaker and professor. He of course teaches at WTS (Tx), RTS, and Highland Theological in Scotland. He is a tough grader in class....Ligon Duncan is also a fantastic speaker.

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend, but have fun....What would be great is for a group of the Highway's finest to all meet at one of these conferences one year.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #15736 Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:50 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 1
Joe

It has always been a dream of mine to be able to go to conferences such as this one. However, I am afraid at this time because of where I live (Northern B.C.) and because of family commitments, I am unable to attend.
Perhaps one day, after the kids leave home (two years) I will be able to attend a few of these.

Tom

MarieP #15737 Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:06 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Semper - As a Campus Crusade employee (not staff) I find your post insulting and your smear of Campus Crusade by innuendo as un-Christian a sentiment as one can imagine. Your unsupported and I believe unsupportable attack on Campus Crusade is without merit and deserves rebuke.

I am an active member of a PCA church as are the two CCC staff members I work with. Campus Crusade staff members hold positions of authority including elder and deacon at my and other PCA churches in my area.

As someone who both embraces reformed theology, as do the CCC staffers I know, and has signed the CCC statement of faith, I can assure you there are no conflicts between the two. If you have something to say that you believe is of merit, why don't you explain it without the distasteful and smug attitude you display here.

Dear board moderators and other posters. I am sorry to begin my posting on this board with such a critical statement. However, I felt it wasn’t possible nor proper to let this post go unchallenged.

#15738 Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:55 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
First of all, let me welcome you to the board, as I hope you find encouragement and fellowship. And I don't mean that flippantly.

However, I do think you reacted rather strongly to my post. I was pointing out the fact that CCCI materials are by and large at odds with Reformed Theology. Take the 4SL, for instance, and the tract that espouses the erroneous doctrine of "the carnal Christian." I have been involved with CCC before, so I am not coming at this with ignornace.

Am I saying there are no sincere believers working in that ministry? Of course not. What I do see, however, is the fact that the materials used by Campus Crusade are basically Arminian in theology.


For previous conversations about CCC, see these threads here and here.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#15739 Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
BillT, I sincerely welcome you to the forum, though you will not like what I have to say.

First, I will say the attitude of your post was uncalled for. I think you should have taken the time to examine SemperReformanda’s (Marie, BTW, she is a real person who use to be affiliated with CCC) posts (pl.) and understand where she was coming from! Your judgment here was presumptuous at best.

Second, I too have friends in the PCA and OPC that are both employed and on staff with CCC. But, they too will tell you in a minute that there are many things wrong both in the way the Gospel is presented at CCC and some of the subject matter: (a) 4 Spiritual Laws (which continues to contribute to a deficient presentation of the biblical Gospel), (b) Jesus Film Project (which violates the 2nd Commandment).

Third, to say that CCC is presenting the Gospel “fully” correct is a misnomer of the infinite sort! The Reformed individuals that I know that are apart of CCC are there to enact "reformed" change, as well as to evangelize. If you are not there for the same purpose then I submit you are simply an Arminian with Reformed rhetoric or have not yet taken the time to examine the doctrine/activity of CCC as compared to the Reformed faith.

IMHO you owe Marie an apology and owe us an explanation of why you believe CCC is totally Reformed.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
MarieP #15740 Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:40 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
The 4SL. God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Man is sinful and separated from God. Jesus Christ is the only provision for man's sin. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

Well, these are certainly a problem from a reformed perspective!?!?

Further, your claims that "the materials" used by CCC are "basically Arminian" is simply not true. In the vast number of publications that are part of CCC are there places where they wouldn't pass muster, of course. But your blanket statement is as uninformed as it is inaccurate.

I am sorry, but your cursory dismissal of CCC is sad and demonstrative of the kind of "I'm a better Christian because I've got better theology" self-righteousness that, I think, we could all do without.

#15741 Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:52 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Joe - Nowhere did I say that CCC was totally reformed and so that is not something I will defend. The only blanket statements like that, made by anyone were made by Semper regarding CCC materials (and, in effect, CCC in general).

Your point that there are many good folks in CCC that work to improve it and enact reformed change I think supports my point of view quite well. If this were an organization that truly deserved being dismissed as Semper did, why would any bother stay. It was he that basically declared it a worthless organization with his cursory and, I think, mean-spirited dismissal. Seems that maybe there is a bit more there than he is willing to give credit for.

#15742 Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:56 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
And BTW, Joe where did I say "that CCC is presenting the Gospel “fully” correct is a misnomer of the infinite sort!" I don't mind the criticism. And you make some fair points about my post but twice in it you attributed to me things I didn't say. Please don't.

#15743 Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:07 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Quote
God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.

I wouldn't call God's plan for the non-elect "wonderful" in human terms. Sure, it's God's perfect plan, and it brings God glory, but to say God has a "wonderful" plan for your life is misleading at best.

Plus, when we say "love" here, too many people use this term as if "God loves the sinner and hates the sin." I'd suggest you read this article here. God does show common grace and benevolence to all. To deny that would be hypercalvinist. But that does not mean it is the same as that love which God has toward the believer.

You accuse me a making "cursory dismissal" of CCC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard definition of cursory is "hasty and without attention to detail; not thorough; a passing glance." I think you are the one making cursory remarks. Like I said before, I KNOW the materials the CCC uses because I was a leader in my college chapter as an undergraduate and went to the Charlotte Christmas Conference one year. I even used the 4SL and the Spirit-Filled Life booklets (which I'd like to see how you reconcile with Reformed theology).


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
MarieP #15744 Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:33 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I may be wrong but I find the kind of criticism you make of the 4SL to be a bit nitpicking. Here you are talking about the "non-elect" in the context of an basic introduction to elementary Christian thought. Also, your "love the sinner but hate the sin" is a spin of what the 4SL says.

Now, I don't want you to not understand my own beliefs of how important the Gospel is. I believe it to be the absolute center of of my faith, my salvation and my sanctification. I belive it needs to be taught fully and clearly. However, it's not like that is the only teaching on the Gospel that CCC offers. I don't even think it's used very much anymore. I know we don't use it in any of our regular programs. To condem CCC on this seems a bit thin.

As far as my calling you dismissal cursory I would point you back to your original post. You dismiss CCC out of hand without any explanaton whatsoever. "They say that the seminary seeks to be "winsomely Reformed" in its evangelism, and yet they say they can do this through Campus Crusade." You don't find this cursory? Boy, what would qualify.

#15745 Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:42 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Quote
However, it's not like that is the only teaching on the Gospel that CCC offers. I don't even think it's used very much anymore. I know we don't use it in any of our regular programs.

Then what DO you use?

And what of the "Spirit-Filled Life" tracts? You still haven't answered my queston there.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
MarieP #15746 Fri Jul 02, 2004 4:20 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
We don't really use the Spirit Filled Life tracts either. We do use a really wide variety of materials from both inside and outside CCC. Stuff from Os Guiness, Rick Warren, bible studies from my PCA church, Francis Schaeffer, Your Life in Christ (CCC), Armand Nicholi, Satisfied (CCC), Sacred Romance (Curtis & Eldridge), the Alpha Study. You seem to see CCC as a monolithic organization with strict adherance to certain CCC materials. That isn't my experiance.

#15747 Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:39 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
First, let me say that, four years ago, we used CCC material, and at the conference we did as well. So either your situation is outside the norm or things have changed in four years.

Secondly, several of the items you say you use are problematic.

Alpha, for instance, if we are talking about the same thing, is heavily influenced by the Charismatic movement. We've discussed this before here.

As for Eldredge, I could hardly recommend him either! Here is a review of his Sacred Romance. We've also talked about Eldredge here. As you will see, the problem is that Eldredge leaves little room for the doctrine of total depravity and downplays sin.

Here are some comments on Warren's Purpose-Driven Life.


Never heard of Armand Nicholi.

Schaeffer is good! I haven't read much Os Guiness, so I'll let someone else discuss him. I hear he is good.

Of particular note, the tract Satisfied is a revision of the "Spirit-Filled Life Tract." Ernie Reisinger wrote a wonderful tract on the myth of the "carnal Christian," and you can find it online here. Let me ask you this too: Do you believe we are filled with the Spirit at conversion or subsequent to conversion?


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#15748 Fri Jul 02, 2004 8:09 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
BillT said:
And BTW, Joe where did I say "that CCC is presenting the Gospel “fully” correct is a misnomer of the infinite sort!" I don't mind the criticism. And you make some fair points about my post but twice in it you attributed to me things I didn't say. Please don't.
Really? : “As someone who both embraces reformed theology, as do the CCC staffers I know, and has signed the CCC statement of faith, <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">I can assure you there are no conflicts between the two</span>.” Here you FULLY equated the teaching of Reformed theology to be equal to the CCC (i.e. NO CONFLICT!). Then you go forward and support a mere Sandamanian gospel presentation by supporting the 4 Spiritual Laws of the CCC, which is in DIRECT CONFLICT with the Reformed Teaching of Scripture!

But, you did not stop there did you? First, you say there are NO CONFLICTS, then you say there ARE? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> Basically now you admit there are conflicts, which was the intent of Marie’s original post on this matter. Marie was in shock how a “fully Reformed” seminary (RTS) could support a mission activity that was NOT “fully Reformed.” Thus, you still owe her an apology and still need to reconcile your theological position with the Holy Scripture.

Please understand that this is not an attack on you individually, but merely the content of your posts.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
MarieP #15749 Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:17 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
To get back to the main point I was trying to make. I found your outright dismissal of an organization that has brought the truth of the Gospel to so many tens of thousands, simply based on whether they are in absolute strict adherence with reformed theology both shortsighted and legalistic. I hope others extend me more grace in light of my shortcomings than you do of CCC's. Now, do not take this as an endorsement of the end justifying the means. I don't believe that. But I do know that an organization that attracts so many believers who hold to the principals you espouse, shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand as you do.

J_Edwards #15750 Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:26 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
"Here you FULLY equated the teaching of Reformed theology to be equal to the CCC (i.e. NO CONFLICT!)." No, I haven't. I have simply stated that I found no conflicts between the Statement of Faith and my understanding of reformed theology. (However imperfect that may be.)

"But, you did not stop there did you? First, you say there are NO CONFLICTS, then you say there ARE? Basically now you admit there are conflicts..." As I said above, no, I didn't say there are no conflicts of any kind and as far as an apology you can check my reply to Marie. Perhaps it applies to you as well.

#15751 Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:31 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Quote
simply based on whether they are in absolute strict adherence with reformed theology

The question is not "absolute strict adherence," but rather compatibilitiy.

Tell me how you think a Calvinist can honestly use the "Satisfied" tract, the Alpha Course, or Eldredge's Sacred Romance.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#15752 Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:51 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
BillT said:
I have simply stated that I found no conflicts between the Statement of Faith and my understanding of reformed theology. (However imperfect that may be.)

CCC's theology is more than a Statement of Faith, it is the Statement of Faith lived out. As CCC's web site displays (and you have attested) it does not live out its theology according to the Reformed faith (see examples above) and thus this invalidates your claim(s). TRUE Reformed Theology and CCC are not to be equated as they are lived out (practiced) differently.

Quote
BillT said:
...as far as an apology you can check my reply to Marie...

Goodbye BillT. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" /> Your lack of repentance and proper apology to Marie make this an unprofitable set of posts to continue.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #15753 Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:18 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Joe - Not only do you continue to, best I can tell, intentionally misunderstand my post but now you appoint yourself judge and jury on whether an apology is appropriate and the consequences of my failure to offer one. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how that kind of judgmental attitude and self-importance jive with reformed theology.

MarieP #15754 Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:32 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
If all of that is just too far out for you perhaps you can tell me what you would use. CCC has brought the truth of the Gospel to ten of thousands and changed more lives for Christ than any organization of its kind. It's full of Calvinists just like you who seem to have be able to work within its structures and compatibility with their beliefs and flourish there. What more can i say?

#15755 Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:39 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi BillT, nice to meet you.

First, you could quit using emotions as your substance for determining truth. This would be a good start. For as many 'calvinists' that do use CCC there are far more opposed to it. It's the same mistake KoreaHog keeps making. I know people who claim one thing and do another all the time. I mean, Billy Graham claims he has led how may to 'the gospel'?


God bless,

william

#15756 Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:45 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Well, as a moderator, I agree with Joe. While I doubt that not giving an apology will result in a ban, your aggressive and condescending attitude is garnering my attention. Please, relax and enjoy your time here. If we aren't to judge as you just claimed to Joe, you are double guilty from the moment you arrived. I suggest you read the guidelines for posting here. Thanks BillT.


God bless,

william

#15757 Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:50 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
James White's tract "The Christian Message" is a start

J. I. Packer's Knowing God

C. H. Spurgeon's All of Grace

R. C. Sproul's Saved from What?

And, yes, I have indeed used all of these (am about to lead a study of Packer's book) for evangelism.

Have you ever read any of the fine, free materials available from Mount Zion Chapel?

By the way, you still haven't told me how you reconcile "Alpha", "Satisfied," and John Eldredge's writing with Reformed theology.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#15758 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
BillT said:
Joe - Not only do you continue to, best I can tell, intentionally misunderstand my post but now you appoint yourself judge and jury on whether an apology is appropriate and the consequences of my failure to offer one. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how that kind of judgmental attitude and self-importance jive with reformed theology.
No one’s misunderstood you or your posts. You yourself knew your initial post was out of place calling it a critical statement.

1. You “continue” to misunderstood Marie’s initial post as brought to your attention here amongst other places.
2. You have not apologized to Marie, thus revealing your continuing un-repentance.
3. While I am not your judge and jury, I can judge what is profitable and unprofitable and I have judged further posting with you to be unprofitable. I would appreciate it if you would respect my wishes.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #15759 Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:30 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
I agree with Joe and averagefellar.

BillT, you ignore our questions (ie How do you reconcile CCC tracts, including "Satisfied," with Reformed theology? How do you reconcile Alpha and the writings of Eldredge with Calvinism?)

But you respond in an emotional way, accusing us of being arrogant and mean-spirited, when you yourself come at us in that manner.

Once again, I did not say I doubted there any were true Christians working for CCC. What I did say was that so much of what CCC publishes/uses is not compatible with Reformed theology.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
J_Edwards #15760 Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:53 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Joe - Remember, it was not I that began the critical statements. Marie did that with her out-of-hand and cursory dismissal of CCC as an organization that wasn't worthy, it would seem from her point of view, of anyone who embraced reformed theology having anything to do with.

I replied to the post you linked though you seem to want to continue to ignore and intentionally misinterpret it.

Your continued call for me to repent continues to show how self-righteous you have become on this subject.

If you want to end this "unprofitable" discussion why don't you do so. It is your replies that keep it alive but then I would expect you to be able to see that as wrapped up in your finger pointing as you are.

#15761 Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:03 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
It may well be fair what you say but didn't the critical nature of this post begin with Marie's post. What, it is ok here to dismiss an entire organization without so much as a single reason but not call into question those who would do that. And though it has become a bit heated here didn't Joe bring that into this thread. What, I'm required to repent on Joe's say so. Boy, that seems fair. Well, I am sorry that this has become so contentious. Am I the only one.

#15762 Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Quote
What, it is ok here to dismiss an entire organization without so much as a single reason but not call into question those who would do that.

Without a single reason?!?! Did you even READ our posts??? I can't continue this conversation any longer with you. All you do is disregard our legitimate questions and instead accuse us of being narrowminded, puffed-up Pharisees.

Once again, and I mean ONCE again, how do you reconcile Alpha, the "Satisfied" tract, and Eldredge's Sacred Romance with Calvinist/Reformed theology?

I'm praying for you, Bill, that God will grant you repentance for how you've treated us, misrepresented our posts and motives, and have generally acted in an accusatory manner instead of dealing with the objective facts pointed to in these posts.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
MarieP #15763 Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:54 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Marie I sorry, I did try to reply directly to you but it didn't seem to post. You make good points here and provide excellent rescouces.

My point about CCC is this. This organization has in it many many people who care about reformed theology as you do. They have given their lives to work for CCC while you dismiss CCC out-of-hand (in your first post) and go so far as to seriously question any organization that would even have anything to do with CCC. There is a disconnect here that is hard to reconcile.

Let me address your reply to my other post. That was in response to "af's" the charge that I had made this post critical in nature. I don't think I am the only one who did this or even the first one who did this. (I did not mean that you didn't or haven't explained yourself. I am sorry if it came out that way.) Nor do I believe I first brought the other attitudes he discussed to this thread.

As far as your question to me. I am not in ministry as a profession. I do not choose the materials that are used. I do know that the people who do care about the truth as you do. If that is too much an "emotional" response, my apologies. You will have to understand that having CCC dismissed as you did (even given your very well informed and explained views) given what I know to be true about it and the people in it is an "emotional" issue.

#15764 Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Thank you for that response. I graciously accept the apology.

If my post in any way seemed to imply that I was making a wholesale dismissal of every single individual working for CCC, or making any sort of wholesale dismissal of anyone who associates with it in any way, then I want to state that is not what I meant it to do.

However, knowing the theology and content of what is used in most CCC outreaches (Campus Crusade material, the items that I've mentioned that you use), by and large it is not Reformed theology, not the clear Gospel, that is being taught. I would agree with Joe, who said that there are sincerely Reformed people working there, but they are there to bring a healthy influence to an organization that so often misses the mark (and I'm not implying that the mark is perfection, but rather the Gospel).

You said that you do not choose the materials you use. But I would ask you this: When you do use these materials, do you find yourself violating your own Reformed beliefs? For instance, when you use "Satisfied," do you say, "Wait a minute! No, no, no. There is no such thing as a carnal Christian. There are not three types of people, but two: saved and unsaved. Let me tell you about the Biblical truth called Lordship salvation" Or, when you use Alpha, do you demonstrate the fallacy of its charismatic and emotional teachings? When you use Eldredge's book, do you explain how Eldredge is wrong in severely downplaying sin, among other problems?


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
MarieP #15765 Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:02 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
When I said I'm not in ministry, I meant it. I don't teach at CCC, I'm in operations. I teach Bible studies in my church home fellowship group and have taught at the adult school at my church (PCA) so I haven't run into those problems. I do know thought that the people here at CCC don't teach Arminianism. They teach that we are sinners separated from God needing Christ and Christ alone for our salvation. Really!!

You say for instance "there are not three types of people, but two: saved and unsaved." I know I agree and I'm sure I don't know anyone here that wouldn't. That's what I can tell you. I knew nothing of CCC when I came here a year and a half ago. I can tell you that I am continually impresssed by the people I meet and the devotion to their work to the truth of the Gospel. No in-between stuff. Believe or perish. (Though you might imagine they don't often lead with that statement they aren't afraid of it either.)

I would imagine you believe that the body of Christ is not defined by organizational lines. I belive there are places in most every chuch or para-church organization where it is alive and places where it isn't. CCC is no different.

#15766 Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:32 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Have you ever thought about asking why "Satisfied," the Alpha course, and John Eldredge are used? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
MarieP #15767 Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:41 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
My 2 cents on this discussion of CCC

Greetings to BillT Marie etc. I’ve been reading with interest the exchange regarding CCC & RTS (at least that is what the first post was about).

Let me say from the beginning that I am a full-time employee of CCC (Not a staff person) I work in the central office of Christian Leadership Ministries, which is the faculty outreach of CCC. I raise some of own financial support.

We have staff scattered around the country & seek to reach (primarily) professors at secular universities and minister to Christian professors at those same universities. I am in a support role, webmaster of our site for Christian professors primarily.

Now my comments on the previous posts. It seems to me that a couple of things need to be kept in mind. CCC is a broad organization. It has within it many reformed people, and many with arminian bent. It is a not a church, it is a movement. Or perhaps more accurately many movements. Frankly for every reformed person that critiques it, it probably has an arminian that does too. So my point is that CCC is not on one particular theology track.

I can think of several of our folks who are very reformed in theology and in practical application in their lives and ministry. I can also think of a few who have specifically stated they are not Calvinists. This fits in well with our strategy.

We as a ministry are trying to work across theological and denominational lines. We’re reaching Christian professors on campuses where they may well be the only Christian in their department. We don’t care what denomination or theology perspective he/she is, within the family of orthodox Christianity. If he/she can affirm the apostles creed, that’s all we need to know.

We are also not, as some might think, blindly accepting of any popular author (like Eldridge for example). We have some very sharp well-trained people who can discern the good from the bad.

I think Bill’s latest post to Marie pretty well states my position. The folks here at The Highway are much more specific in their theological wave length. CCC is much broader in the spectrum of orthodox Christianity. Both have their place.

As to your specific objections:
The new “Satisfied” booklet, here on the web http://www.campuscrusadeforchrist.com/resources/satisfied.htm

Seems to be a bit more acceptable than the original writing because it softens the issue of the “Carnal Christian”. Less of an emphasis on an almost optional sounding third type of Christian

The Four Laws: One can debate and debate Law 1. Personally I would probably rephrase to make it less universal sounding.

Partnerships like with RTS: This type of partnership might just help CCC grow spiritually. So let's look at it from a positive perspective.

Alpha Course: Can’t comment, have only heard of it.

Eldridge: Lots of good content, needs to be read discerningly.



Paul

Last edited by PaulRH; Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:44 PM.
#15768 Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:43 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
af - I gather you can catch up on my answers to Marie for subsatnce and the "emotional" content of my posts. Thanks for the welcome. I'll try to do better in the future.

#15769 Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:09 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
BillT,

I do respect your wanting to defend the organization you are working for to whatever degree you think it needs defending. And I understand even more your wanting to defend those individuals who you consider to hold to "Reformed Theology" who also work within CCC. But I hope you also will understand that there are many people who simply don't understand the Reformed Faith, the Gospel of sovereign grace and how it effects how we evangelize and our individual lives, because it is the application of the Bible to all of life. Calvinism is a world and life view, not just a set of archaic doctrines dreamed up by a bunch of disgruntled anti-Romanists.

Let me relate to you a good example of how someone can profess to hold to the truths of Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria yet they had no effect on the thinking or life of the individual. I once loaned a copy of A.W. Pink's magnificent book, The Sovereignty of God to a middle-aged woman who appeared to be very interested in the teaching of Scripture and Christianity. In fact, she professed to be a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. When I met this woman she was very much in the habit of reading and listening to Billy Graham and using material from Bill Bright and CCC. When she was through reading Pink's book, I asked her what her impressions were of it. There was one statement she made which I shall never forget as it was indelibly burned into my memory. She said, "I really liked the book and believe that Pink was teaching the truth of the Bible. But I don't see any difference between what Billy Graham or Bill Bright teaches!" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

The fact is that Pink's book presents the biblical God Who is sovereign in power and authority and Who has foreordained all things for His glory. There is not one single molecule in the universe which He hasn't ordered its path and end. The same is true in regard to mankind. The LORD God has foreordained ALL things to the end that He might be glorified, whether it be in the damnation of the majority of the human race or in the salvation of a remnant chosen by grace. This is a teaching which Billy Graham, Bill Bright, CCC and the majority of denominations and churches today categorically deny. The Gospel which A.W. Pink taught is decidedly antithetical to the "gospel" of Bill Bright and CCC. And let me say this about A.W. Pink..... he was simply a common everyday Calvinist; not some hyper-Calvinist, not some extremist, simply a sinner saved by grace whom the Lord gifted in the Word of God.

Now, what I would really like you to do for me but mostly for yourself is to click on this link and read through this classic booklet written by Dr J.I. Packer. You may need to force yourself a bit to read it all the way through, but I can assure you that when you have finished reading it, you will not be the same. For it is impossible that you could be since in that little treatise, Packer sets forth the truth of the real Gospel against the modern "gospel" which he says is "no gospel at all". I cannot but agree with Packer's assessment. If you are concerned about the souls of your fellow man, read this:

Click here: Introductory Essay to the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by Dr. J.I. Packer.

May the Lord bless it to your soul. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
PaulRH #15770 Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
PauRH states:
We don’t care what denomination or theology perspective he/she is, within the family of orthodox Christianity. If he/she can affirm the apostles creed, that’s all we need to know.
Although I think this affirmation speaks volumes in and of itself and needs to critique or comment from me, it does however, move me to ask one simple question of you personally:

Would you feel comfortable ministering in door-to-door evangelism side-by-side with a man who professed Arminian theology? Could you do this in good conscience? If so, how would you reconcile the false gospel which he would be speaking with the true Gospel which you presumably would be speaking as a professed Calvinist?

Thanks in advance for your candor in responding to my question. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #15771 Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
No, not a pure 100% Arminian. But actually, I've never met one. I've read their writings, but never known one personally.

paul

PaulRH #15772 Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:41 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
PaulRH said:
No, not a pure 100% Arminian. But actually, I've never met one. I've read their writings, but never known one personally.

paul
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Silly me for thinking that my question was sufficient. Okay... let me rephrase the question for you.

Would you have any hesitation in working side-by-side doing evangelism with someone who did not embrace the doctrines of Grace, aka: the Reformed Faith, Calvinism, Reformation doctrine, etc.? In other words, just your typical "Evangelical" who if asked about such things as Unconditional Election, Predestination, Limited Atonement, etc., would be at odds with those doctrines? If you answer in the affirmative, i.e., you would have no problems working with such an individual evangelizing the lost, how would you reconcile the undeniable antithesis between what he believes and teaches compared to that of the Reformed faith, which again, I am presuming you profess to hold dear.

Thanks again in advance.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #15773 Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:47 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
In short no, as long as we agree beforehand on how we would address sin and repentance.

I guess I've lead sheltered life, and never encountered Arminians like you describe (except over at the Church of Christ!) Maybe I need to get out more.

Paul

PaulRH #15774 Tue Jul 06, 2004 6:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
PaulRH said:
In short no, as long as we agree beforehand on how we would address sin and repentance.

I guess I've lead sheltered life, and never encountered Arminians like you describe (except over at the Church of Christ!) Maybe I need to get out more.

Paul
Hmmmmm, the fact is that probably 90% +/- of those who profess to be Christians in the U.S. would hold to the theology of Charles Finney &co. to one degree or another. How you could NOT encounter such people is frankly miraculous. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
PaulRH #15775 Tue Jul 06, 2004 7:14 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
I'd like to share with you a passage from as book I am currently reading. It's called God-Centered Evangelism by R. B. Kuiper. While Kuiper does not come out and say the two can't work together under any circumstance, he does warn his readers that it is indeed a serious issue that must be considered:

Quote
The most serious obstacle to unrestricted co-operation remains to be considered. There are among them certain doctrinal differences which affect in a direct way the presentation of the gospel and are by no means insignificant. Here the difference between the Reformed faith and the faith of the Arminian must be named. They agree fully that the divine offer of salvation is perfectly sincere in the case of all to whom it comes and that nothing would please God more than the acceptance of that offer by all in faith. They also agree that the sinner is obligated to believe in Christ and that, in case he fails to meet that obligation, he will perish through his own fault, and not through any fault on the part of God.

Yet there are appreciable differences. The Arminian will tell each sinner that God designed by the death of His Son to save him; the Calvinist will insist that Paul never once addressed a sinner thus, and that he could not have done it because this would have implied that mere man could thwart the plan of the Almighty. The Arminian will tell unregenerate man that he has the ability to believe in Christ and that, if he exercises that ability of his own free volition, he will be born again; the Calvinist will insist that unregenerate man, dead in trespasses and sins as he is (Eph. 2:1), will not and cannot come to Christ in faith except God draw him by the irresistible and regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit (John 6:44). Let no one term these differences minor or ridicule them as mere hair-splitting.

On this matter Benjamin B. Warfield says in The Plan of Salvation: "The issue is indeed a fundamental one, and it is closely drawn. Is it God the Lord that saves us, or is it we ourselves? And does God the Lord save us, or does he merely open the way to salvation and leave it, according to our choice, to walk in ir or not? The parting of the ways is the old parting of the ways between Christianity and autosoterism."


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
MarieP #15776 Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:39 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
Quoted from Kuiper's book:
the Calvinist will insist that unregenerate man, dead in trespasses and sins as he is (Eph. 2:1), will not and cannot come to Christ in faith except God draw him by the irresistible and regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit (John 6:44).
There are many fundamental differences between the "modern" gospel which was made most popular by Charles Finney and more recently by Billy Graham and Bill Bright among many others. But what Kuiper mentions in that section of his book is also that which Packer also mentions with all seriousness in his Introductory Essay to the Death of Death in the Death of Christ[/i].

The modern evan-jelly-cals, with their dumbed-down "gospel" mentions sin only in passing if at all. The emphasis given in most presentations is that "man is separated from God". But rarely will you ever hear the modern "soul winner" speak of the helpless an hopeless condition of the sinner's soul. Those who are lost are not in need of making a "decision" or even of "reformation", but rather man's greatest need is "regeneration"; to be made alive by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. Unless a man is "born from above" he has absolutely no ability to love Christ, no ability to move toward Christ, in fact without regeneration man naturally hates Christ. Sinners need a new nature. Reading some "sinner's prayer" on the back of a business card or pamphlet will accomplish nothing. And further, this needed radical change of nature cannot be initiated by anything that man can do; it is wholly at the discretion of Almighty God. This truth albeit odious to the vast majority of people and surprisingly even to those who profess to be believers in the inspiration of the Bible and of the sovereignty of God (modified, or course, to meet their own needs) drives men to despair of themselves and rely totally upon the mercy and grace of God.

The God of the Bible is not a "god" Who sits in the heavens praying that Susie Q or John Model Citizen will open the door of their hearts and let a pleading Christ enter and save them. We believe in a Sovereign LORD Who saves who He wills and when He wills according to His eternal counsel and grace. It is the sinners [i]responsibility to get on his knees and plead with the God of all grace to have mercy on him and give him what he needs most..... a new heart of flesh. The glory of the Gospel of Christ is that ALL who come to Him by faith will be received. Thus as the apostle Paul proclaims,


2 Corinthians 5:20 (KJV) "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."



Here are some excellent articles which address this topic:

Cooperative Evangelism, by John Murray
What is it to Preach the Gospel?, by Henry Mahan
Another Gospel, by John Cheeseman
The Gospel and Evangelicalism: An Assessment, by William Webster
Two Views of the Gospel, by Will Metzger

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #15777 Wed Jul 07, 2004 10:13 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Pilgrim; I will respond here to your post to me and want to thank you for your time and the link to the J.I. Packer article. None of that is exactly new information to me but the comparison he makes is excellent. I can say that I couldn't agree with Packer more and he draws the distinction brilliantly. (But then he is J.I. Packer!)

As far as the CCC question I think I would make this point. We are talking about an organization whose basic function is to introduce the most elementary Christian concepts to people who don't know Christ. In light of that I would ask this question. When you came to Christ did you understand the distinction that J.I. Packer draws so well? Did you first understand election and predestination and then in light of that understanding accept Christ? The distinctions Packer draws are very important. But when are they important. They are important to believing Christians who are trying to understand their relationship to God. Prior to a belief in God and acceptance of Christ, I think they are quite beyond comprehension.

I just wonder how much anyone reformed or otherwise, really gets from these ideas in the initial stages of evangelism. Mustn’t we approach every person as if they are elect. Who are we to judge or know. Would you decide not to tell someone about Christ because you don't feel they are regenerate enough? The seemingly objectionable 4 Laws begin with the "God loves you..." which is certainly overly broad from a reformed viewpoint but not overly broad from a personal one as I said above. Would you begin with "God loves you, if you happen to be elect,..."!

Perhaps, as I came to Christ in a PCA church and am surrounded by people here at CCC that are members of that church and elders in that church I may be a bit naive myself. On the other hand I think we need to keep the context of CCC in perspective. It isn't a Church. It isn't an organization whose purpose is to promote a specific theology. It is an organization that exists to spread the Gospel. Yes, theology does matter in that context as well but not to the extent I think it does in a church setting. I have not run into situations here at CCC where the distinctions raised by Packer come into play. Perhaps I should look more closely.

PaulRH #15778 Wed Jul 07, 2004 10:38 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Quote
If he/she can affirm the apostles creed, that’s all we need to know

I'd like to make a comment on the use of the Apostle's Creed. It certainly contains fundamental truths of our faith! It excludes such worldviews as Gnosticism, naturalism, and outright pluralism. And yet I don't think that, just because one can affirm this creed, it necessarily means they are conservatives or even orthodox. Consider the following: http://www.abpnews.com/news/news_detail.cfm?NEWS_ID=107

Pilgrim has said in another thread, in response to a question about why the Apostle's Creed does not address justification by faith alone:
Quote
The historic evangelical Creeds did not "ignore" the doctrine of justification by faith. It was not their intention to address it. One of the basic differences between a Creed and a Confession is that a Creed was generally written in response to a heresy that was then being brought against or even into the Church. Thus, Creeds are very narrow/specific as to their subject. A Confession, on the other hand, is more of a summary of doctrines which address a wide variety of subjects.

So, it is very possible for someone to affirm one or more of the major Creeds and yet deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This individual thus perverts the Gospel of free grace and is preaching "another gospel".


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#15779 Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:49 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
I heartily agree with Bill's post. I would add however one note. bill said:

"As far as the CCC question I think I would make this point. We are talking about an organization whose basic function is to introduce the most elementary Christian concepts to people who don't know Christ."

I would add that increasingly the audience is not just those who don't know Christ but those who have no idea what the Christian faith is, having no background in it at all.

Thank you Bill for your on point comments. And also for adjusting your approach in a discussion that got started off on the wrong foot.

Paul

MarieP #15780 Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:54 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Thanks for your reply, however Please keep my comment in it's context. Our ministry is to Christian professors, not 5 point Calvinist professors.

Hence the use of affirmation of the apostles creed as a standard, not the WCF or other confessions. We're ministering to a broad audience.

Paul

PaulRH #15781 Wed Jul 07, 2004 12:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Eldridge: Lots of good content, needs to be read discerningly.
While in my initial post I would agree with you that, “This type of partnership might just help CCC grow spiritually. So let's look at it from a positive perspective,” I also see many problems that still need to be overcome with CCC. One such problem is seen in your statement above. IMHO, presenting half-truths (Eldredge) does not equate to the Gospel. To say one needs to read his material discerningly is an understatement.

Eldredge’s books are about as far from Reformed orthodoxy as I can imagine (at least the two I have read). Let’ look at his book the Wild at Heart for an example:

Eldredge, while inviting men to "know and live from" their deep hearts, seems to have forgotten that the heart is deceitfully wicked (Jer 17:9; Mark 7:20f,). Eldredge does not stop here. He continues by saying, "Too many Christians today are living back in the old covenant. They've had Jeremiah 17:9 drilled into them and they walk around believing my heart is deceitfully wicked. Not anymore it's not." Eldredge's insight into the human heart is bad theology.

In describing Adam's relationship with God, Eldredge gives us his personal commentary: "Before the moment of Adam's greatest trial God provided no step-by-step plan, gave no formula for how he was to handle the whole mess. That was not abandonment; that was the way God honored Adam. You are a man; you don't need Me to hold you by the hand through this. You have what it takes." Eldredge does have an imagination—which has a stench of humanism and heresy. Eldredge says, "God is a person who takes immense risks" (p 30). "He did not make Adam and Eve obey Him. He took a risk. A staggering risk, with staggering consequences. He let others into his story, and he lets their choices shape it profoundly" (p 31).

Eldredge denies the omnipotence of Christ. In commenting on spiritual oppression (Luke 8:26-33), Eldredge writes, " . . . when [Jesus] encounters the guy who lives out in the Gerasenes tombs, tormented by a legion of spirits, the first rebuke by Jesus doesn't work. He had to get more information, really take them on . . . "

When CCC endorses tracts by Eldredge and others of questionable origins they do not embrace a full Gospel presentation. They also incite others to read other materials by these same authors which can be devastating to a proper understanding of the Gospel. Hopefully your presence and responsible handling of such matters from a Reformed perspective will have some impact on the organization as a whole.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #15782 Wed Jul 07, 2004 12:39 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Thanks for your comments. I think you make a valid critique.

I've only read Sacred Romance by Eldridge. From what I've read about Wild at Heart, SR is the better book of the 2.

Paul

Last edited by PaulRH; Wed Jul 07, 2004 12:40 PM.
#15783 Wed Jul 07, 2004 1:27 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Quote
BillT asks:
When you came to Christ did you understand the distinction that J.I. Packer draws so well? Did you first understand election and predestination and then in light of that understanding accept Christ?
No, I did not first understand election and predestination. But that is not what Packer's emphasis is when contrasting the "old Gospel" with that of the "new gospel". His point is that the "new gospel" obviates and that deliberately, the fundamental truth(s) that man by nature is at enmity with God. He is controlled by a corrupt and wicked nature which prevents him from having even an interest in God, Christ and salvation. Natural man is in love with self and sin and is in desperate need of a radical transformation of the soul. This is something which one rarely if ever hears from church pulpits or from self-appointed "soul winners". It is also something which CCC "officially" rejects theologically. Whether it is naivety or a turning of a blind eye, the fact is that CCC does have a theology which is holds and promotes. It can be seen in its literature, etc. It is a combination of pragmatism, humanism and semi-Pelagianism.

What do "I" believe should be included in a proper biblical presentation of the true Gospel? Funny you should ask! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Go here: A Gospel Summary.

Quote
You also asked:
Mustn’t we approach every person as if they are elect. Who are we to judge or know. Would you decide not to tell someone about Christ because you don't feel they are regenerate enough? . . . Would you begin with "God loves you, if you happen to be elect,..."!
No, we must not and have no warrant to "approach every person as if they are elect". Discerning one's election is not relevant to preaching the Gospel. We must approach every person knowing what God says about them; i.e., they are children of wrath and under God's judgment. They are enemies of God, rebellious, wicked, worthy of eternal punishment, and are in dire need of God's saving grace in Christ. Thus, we speak the truth in love and tell them of their true condition. We speak of the law of God and how they are lawbreakers and bondservants of sin. We speak of judgment and how they will be held accountable for every thought, word and deed. We also speak of the great salvation in Christ; remission of sins, reconciliation with God, adoption as sons, the power to overcome sin, peace that passes all understanding, communion with the Almighty Lord of the universe and a life of eternal worship and joy in the age to come. See the article at the link above for a full summary of what the Gospel is.

The Scripture reserves God's "love" for His elect. And since we are unable to know who the elect are, we have no warrant to presume that God loves one who is unregenerate. We have warrant to speak of God's love in general terms and we should, e.g., that God is a merciful and loving God Who determined not to let the entire human race suffer eternal hell. But He sent forth His only begotten Son to redeem a part of mankind, which redemption is offered to all who will come in repentance and faith in Christ, etc. This whole idea to telling people "God loves you" is not found in the Bible, but rather it is a marketing ploy meant to make people interested in asking Jesus into their hearts, which also is not to be found in the Scriptures. The entire presentation of the "Four Spiritual Laws" is a counterfeit and man-made technique designed to produce results. Unfortunately, it does produce results, but of what? Even Billy Graham admits that in his estimation only 4% of those who come forward to "receive Christ" at his Crusades are actually saved. Personally, I think Graham is guilty of over-estimating the actual number of true converts. And the devastation such counterfeit gospels produces is immeasurable. For it serves only to deceive people into a false assurance and hardens their hearts against the truth of God's saving grace in Christ.

Quote
Lastly you asked:
On the other hand I think we need to keep the context of CCC in perspective. It isn't a Church. It isn't an organization whose purpose is to promote a specific theology. It is an organization that exists to spread the Gospel. Yes, theology does matter in that context as well but not to the extent I think it does in a church setting.
But brother, CCC DOES PROMOTE A SPECIFIC THEOLOGY... it is semi-Pelagianism, wrapped in pragmatism and humanism. Further its "gospel" is a counterfeit and not the true Gospel found in the inspired biblical record. It is a man-made "gospel" meant to deceive and has no power to save. Let me ask you this: "What does a counterfeit $20 bill look like?" Would you accept a $20 bill that was purple with yellow polka dots and which displayed a picture of Mickey Mouse on the front? [Linked Image] I would hardly think you would. And why not? Because it would be more than obvious that it was not real money. However, counterfeit money looks, feels, and even smells like the real thing. It is meant to deceive by appearing to be just like real money. We are warned many times in the Scriptures about false prophets, false teachers, and those who would bring "another Gospel", preaching another Jesus and another Spirit. (cf. 2Cor 11:3, 4; Gal 1:6-9; 2Tim 3:1-7; 4:3, 4; 2Pet 2:1-3; et al)

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #15784 Wed Jul 07, 2004 1:47 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
In all due respect, you are mischaracterizing CCC. You said:

"But brother, CCC DOES PROMOTE A SPECIFIC THEOLOGY... it is semi-Pelagianism, wrapped in pragmatism and humanism. Further its "gospel" is a counterfeit and not the true Gospel found in the inspired biblical record. It is a man-made "gospel" meant to deceive and has no power to save."

Your other overstatement is "The entire presentation of the "Four Spiritual Laws" is a counterfeit and man-made technique designed to produce results."

That is nearly slander. But, I'll not argue with you. We'll just have to disagree.

PaulRH #15785 Wed Jul 07, 2004 1:54 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Wrongfully claiming somebody 'nearly committed slander' can also be viewed as slanderous.......especially when the claim isn't validated somehow. Perhaps you could show us how CCC does not offer a different gospel? Or possible how the 4 spiritual laws is Biblical? Thanks.


God bless,

william

#15786 Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:04 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
It's not a "different Gospel" because it clearly states that man is sinful, separated from God, and the only answer is acknolwledging that fact and trusting Christ as your Savior.

That is the gospel pure & simple. And that is what the 4 Laws presents. The only point in question should be the statement "God Loves you..." Law 1. Otherwise, I can't imagine how anyone can conclude the 4 Laws booklet is totally some sort of "different gospel".

Paul

PaulRH #15787 Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
In all due respect, you are mischaracterizing CCC.
In all due respect you are mischaracterizing Pilgrim's post. Then you take this cheap shot saying, "That is nearly slander." What is slanderdous is taking the Gospel and reducing it to the likes of Eldredge much less the Sandamanian gospel presentation of the 4-SL. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #15788 Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:23 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Joe: I'm sorry you don't like what I said. I called it like I see it and I stand behind what I said.

I don't intend to debate the point further, because it would be pointless.

paul

J_Edwards #15789 Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:54 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818
Permanent Resident
Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818
I shouldn't be barging in on this, but why are we letting CCC rile us so much. There is much good within CCC as well as some bad. But, are they different from any conservative evangelical perspective outside of the Reformed. What makes CCC the whipping boy? From these postings we see that CCC includes the Reformed, even welcomes as the original post in the thread indicated, in their ministry. What makes them more dangerous than say the NAVS or denominations such as the SBC. They don't kick out any paedos out of ministry, non pre-mills, or 5-pointers. We may counteract by saying they suppress Reformed thought, and that is probably true in some instances, but not in others. Only the Reformed within CCC have a good gauge in what may not be tolerated in terms of theology, and they all probably have different takes on it.

CCC is probably more friendly to Reformed thought within its organization than most other para church groups and denominations.

I'm coming from someone who has had some background with CCC staffers, albeit they were all Reformed, a couple became PCA Pastors later. My gripes with the CCC lie in that they allow staffers into the ministry too quickly, a fast train approach to their training. There are several parachurch groups that I would recommend someone to be a participant before CCC, but CCC is not on my off list.

Last edited by John_C; Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:57 PM.

John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
John_C #15790 Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:50 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
John: You've asked a great question and made very valid observations (and a very accurate specific criticism by the way).

I think one thing that is going on is that some people, understandably, think of CCC as a giant monolith organizations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Paul

John_C #15791 Wed Jul 07, 2004 7:29 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
John C, have you read all the posts in this thread? If so, then you know the answers already.

First, there is clearly ignorance of dissimulation on the part of those who profess to be Reformed yet openly use CCC literature which is antithetical to the doctrines of the Reformed Faith. The people in CCC are not the "whipping boy" as you so cordially put it. Marie and myself have already commented on the integrity of many within CCC. So, the issue is not that CCC is a "whipping boy," but that there is undeniably a disparity between what some people profess to believe and their practice. Please read the posts.

Second, I would ask you if you endorse any sort of false Gospel to be propagated to the lost? Indeed not, you would most certainly reply! What Marie, Pilgrim, myself, and others have shown is that CCC does not present “the Gospel.” When an organization propagates such things as the 4-SLs, Eldredge, and the like they are to be called into account for it. If they continue to maintain that a false Gospel is a true Gospel, then they are not Reformed in practice (maybe in word, but not in deed). Clearly, it has been shown that the “deeds” and “doctrines” of CCC are semi-Pelgian at best and when pushing Eldredge—heresy at worse. In summay, the methodologies used by CCC are antithetical to that which the Scripture and the Reformed Faith (at least classical Calvinism), would condone or even allow.

Third, whether a missionary, para-church organization, et. al. are friendly to the Reformed camp makes no difference if the Reformed in question make no stand for the true Gospel and defend semi-Pelgianism. Even a Mormon church is friendly to us Reformed folk as long as we keep our mouths shut (p.s.: I am not equating CCC w/Mormonism).

Lastly, you mentioned suppressing Reformed thought. If you believed that Reformed thought is the very thoughts of Scripture then you would you need to say CCC suppresses the Gospel, the Scriptures, etc. Now, is this a true Gospel—if the Gospel itself is suppressed?


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #15792 Wed Jul 07, 2004 9:21 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818
Permanent Resident
Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,818
Joe,

What I'm trying to say is that using your criteria we should be encouraging everyone, including the likes of Jerry Bridges, to pull out of the NAVS and all our Reformed posters along with Al Mohler who belonging to a SBC church should do the same. Nothing that CCC does in its ministry teaching is much different than what you will find in these two organizations. And, they are two of the most respected organization and denomination within bible-believing Christianity.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
John_C #15793 Wed Jul 07, 2004 9:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
John_C said:
Joe,

What I'm trying to say is that using your criteria we should be encouraging everyone, including the likes of Jerry Bridges, to <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">pull out</span> of the NAVS and all our Reformed posters along with Al Mohler who belonging to a SBC church should do the same. Nothing that CCC does in its ministry teaching is much different than what you will find in these two organizations. And, they are two of the most respected organization and denomination within bible-believing Christianity.

John C where did I say <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">pull out</span>? MY very FIRST post on this topic said that the Reformed should be there "to enact "reformed" change." Then I gave examples of other organizations. Marie even works for the SBC! I repeat again, PLEASE read ALL the posts.

But, to enact Reformed change one must (1) know the truth (2) support the truth (3) espouse the truth, etc. What we are saying is keep your guard up and live out the truths of the Gospel and do not compromise!!! (this is the Bible's criteria is it not???). Basically you are either part of the problem or part of the solution? If you support such things as 4-SLs and Eldredge then you have become part of the problem!


Reformed and Always Reforming,
John_C #15794 Wed Jul 07, 2004 10:25 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
John,

Perhaps I'm all wet here, but it seems that you have missed the point Joe was trying to make and that which I too agree with most strongly. The point isn't whether someone can or should "belong to" an organization, church, group, etc., which isn't "Reformed" if they are. But rather it is hypocritical for one to profess to hold faithfully to the doctrines of sovereign free grace, in its fullness as a world and life view, as well as soteriology and use the Sandemanian and semi-Pelagian literature of that organization. There are, for example, members here whose churches belong to heretical or even apostate denominations. But those churches do not partake of the doctrines of the denomination, philosophies or practices. I can speak from personal experience that I was once a member of a RCA congregation who refused to pay the required financial "quota" which all the individual churches were supposed to pay because of what that money was used for; e.g., schools, and other things which were antithetical to the doctrines which the church held to be true (Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt and the Heidelberg Catechism). Instead, they directed that money to support such schools as WTS in Philadelphia. Over time the RCA gave us an ultimatum; pay the quota or be disciplined. We voted overwhelming to leave the denomination rather than allow women to be ordained to office, money to be used to support heretical schools, etc.

So, it is possible for a person to hold faithfully to biblical Calvinism and be part of a non-Calvinistic organization. But it is hypocritical for such a one to profess one thing to be true yet preach, teach, hand out literature, use methodologies, etc., which are antithetical to that profession. As long as such organizations are willing to allow people to preach, teach and distribute literature which is "Reformed" and work to reform that organization, I think it is appropriate and marvelous to do so. Pragmatism is no excuse for doing that which is hypocritical. I would simply point out how Paul dealt with a similar situation in Antioch and called Peter on the carpet for professing one thing but doing something which was antithetical to his profession. (cf. Gal 2:11-19)

I hope this serves to clarify that which some of find objectionable and that our concerns would challenge those who profess to be Calvinists to stand firm in that profession and not partake of the unbiblical literature and evangelistic practices of the CCC.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
J_Edwards #15795 Wed Jul 07, 2004 10:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Thanks, Joe. Good comments.

I will say that I have had many opportunities to speak of the Doctrines of Grace to many within the SBC. The church I now go to, although a member of the SBC, is Reformed and is not afraid to let that theology shape its preaching and practice. We do not use the official SBC materials (FAITH evangelism, Sunday School materials, etc). In fact, the curriculum used in the childrens' Sunday School is the Great Commission Publications of the PCA/OPC. Are most SBC churches Reformed? No, not hardly! But if those type of churches were not standing for the Biblical doctrines we hold so dear, where would the SBC be?

Like Joe said, you are either staying as part of the solution or part of the problem. If I was in the SBC advocating Billy Graham's methods, using the FAITH material, touting John Eldredge and Adrian Rogers, and pushing seeker sensitivity, I would be part of the problem.

Today in my membership interview for my new church, the pastor encouraged me to write a letter to my old church detailing these concerns. I should have done so earlier, but now I will do it because I am convicted of the need to. In an earlier post, I listed some of the problems I saw, and I will use them in developing my letter. Here is what I wrote earlier:

Quote
1. I repent of choosing the church I go to chiefly because Dr. Mohler is the Sunday School teacher. I had to admit this today when a good friend of mine and I got into a discussion and she asked me, "If Dr. Mohler was not at the church, would you be going there?" My response was "no."

2. Of late, some things in the worship service have bothered me, including an "invitation" (which they have just recently begun doing- the Founder's church does not do one), music during the invitation prayer, this last Sunday the music leader asking God for a "double dose" of Himself, the increasing neglect of hymns and the ncreasing use of choruses that are "questionable"- like "He Has Made Me Glad," and the use of videos behind the words to music at times, as well as the use of the service to promote "The Passion" during offering this past Sunday.

3. The fact that I am a Calvinist and, from what I can tell, my pastor is not. Also, several of the teachers that were Calvinists have gone on to other ministries.

4. They use the FAITH material in their evangelism. The FAITH tracts, which we have talked about before on here, are not as Scripturally rich and crucifixion/resurrection centered as what I feel is adequate.

5. The lingering fact that the pastor did not correct anything when we had a speaker come for our anniversary banquet who preached a prosperity-type sermon. I mentioned this on here as well.

Please pray that I can do this smoothly and without hurting anyone's feelings. The main thing that is holding me back is that I joined the church about a year ago. I've changed, though, since I joined that church. Before I was seeking for the approval of man (in that I thought it would be the right church for me just because someone else goes there) instead of seeking the approval of God in the matter.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
J_Edwards #15796 Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:36 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Joe,

You said: "What Marie, Pilgrim, myself, and others have shown is that CCC does not present “the Gospel.”

I disagree. I don't believe anyone has shown such as fact. What has been shown is that some of the materials and one author are not "Reformed" in theology.

Paul

PaulRH #15797 Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:47 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
PaulRH said:

Joe,

You said: "What Marie, Pilgrim, myself, and others have shown is that CCC does not present “the Gospel.”

I disagree. I don't believe anyone has shown such as fact. What has been shown is that some of the materials and one author are not "Reformed" in theology.

One, we have shown that one of your authors is a heretic. This is a little different than saying he is not merely Reformed.

Two, the sharing of “false materials” (4-SLs, Alpha.) does not equate to “the Gospel,” but another gospel, a mere Sandemanian gospel.

Moreover, Paul I know you meant well attempting to defend CCC, but you took my quote out of its proper context. While I'm sure "some" within CCC do share the real Gospel (see my very first post on this issue) many do not. Many do not see the error(s) of 4-SLs, Eldredge, and the like (even you said Eldredge only needed to be read discerningly, which begs the question of how a non-Christian is to do that?). As I stated within the same paragraph you snipped my other statement from, “When an organization propagates such things as the 4-SLs, Eldredge, and the like they are to be called into account for it. If they continue to maintain that a false Gospel is a true Gospel, then they are not Reformed in practice (maybe in word, but not in deed). Clearly, it has been shown that the “deeds” and “doctrines” of CCC are semi-Pelgian at best and when pushing Eldredge—heresy at worse. In summary, the methodologies used by CCC are antithetical to that which the Scripture and the Reformed Faith (at least classical Calvinism), would condone or even allow.”

As one once said, “I'm sorry you don't like what I said. I called it like I see it and I stand behind what I said.”


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #15798 Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:23 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 35
I suppose we'll have to disagree as to what has been proven.

Paul

PaulRH #15799 Thu Jul 08, 2004 7:28 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
MarieP Offline OP
Veteran
OP Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
You're telling us Eldredge is preaching the Gospel??? Did you even read the thread about him? You're telling us that Sandemanianism is okay as well??? I never thought that this thread would get so controversial...


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 44 guests, and 30 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
September
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,283,810 Gospel truth