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
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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'?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
