Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Johan
Johan
South Africa
Posts: 330
Joined: October 2006
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,298
Posts53,257
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,047
Tom 4,048
chestnutmare 3,086
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 26
Tom 13
Robin 5
Johan 3
Readin 2
Recent Posts
NeoCalvinism
by Pilgrim - Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:17 PM
The Gospel of the Glory
by NetChaplain - Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:34 AM
The Nick-name Calvinism
by Pilgrim - Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:06 PM
Natural Theology
by Anthony C. - Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:47 AM
Wilderness Wealth
by NetChaplain - Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:57 AM
Your opinion please
by Johan - Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:03 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
#42817 Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:54 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
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 #42819 Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:16 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,047
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,047
Likes: 13
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? scratchchin

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #42820 Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:38 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
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? scratchchin

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 #42821 Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:22 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,047
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,047
Likes: 13
John,

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

Quote
Some have asked if the content of The Truth Project follows a specific doctrinal perspective (e.g., whether Arminian or Reformed). In keeping with the interdenominational nature of our organization, Dr. Tackett has made a deliberate effort to avoid emphasizing any particular theological interpretation. The mandate of The Truth Project is to concentrate on the basic tenets of the faith that C.S. Lewis would call “mere Christianity;” as such, it’s being readily accepted and utilized across the board by equally committed and dedicated believers who “see through the glass” diversely and distinctively.

Found here: What is the statement of faith for Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project®?
Can you say, "lowest common denominator theology" three times quickly?

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

Quote
We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful humanity, regeneration by the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely essential;
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. igiveup

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. grin

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #42847 Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:07 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
John,

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. grin

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 #42848 Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:17 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
Originally Posted by john
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.

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 #42850 Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:15 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by William
Originally Posted by john
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.

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.

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

Quote
Many people today – unfortunately, most people – don’t seem to think that there is any universal standard of absolute truth. But we believe differently. The purpose of The Truth Project is to develop a biblical worldview: “A formal worldview based ultimately upon that nature, character, and being of God as it is expressed in His infallible Word [the Bible] and His creation. It becomes the foundation for a life system that governs every area of existence.”

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

john #42920 Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,048
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,048
Likes: 1
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

Last edited by Pilgrim; Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:38 PM. Reason: Fixed bad UBB Code tag for the link.
Tom #42956 Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:07 AM
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1

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.








Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 38 guests, and 18 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.
October
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
31
Today's Birthdays
CovenantInBlood
Popular Topics(Views)
1,295,710 Gospel truth