with all respect and every attempt to return this thread to even handed conversation, will someone rationalize this comment despite that weve been told time and time again that if we are elect, we will be saved despite our arminianism. In fact RN came to Christ via the RCC didnt she ?
on top of that, is Joel the sole voice of the gospel - dont these people have brains ? - excpting the big screens, its likely they have a Bible - and Im confident God will reach them despite Osteens feel good message.... and when it does - theyll move on to a meatier church
You cant feed a baby chili - nor can you feed a new believer with Gods holy slap o judgment
You start with love, and forgiveness - building from there into repentance, and a well rounded faith
That does not negate the commands of God to preach the Gospel and not a false gospel, to defend the faith and the Church against all who would subvert the Truth of the faith and Church. God condescends to employ His Elect to share in the work laid before the Church.
on top of that, is Joel the sole voice of the gospel
Joel Osteen is not a "voice of the gospel" at all. He is a purveyor of a false gospel that is no gospel(good news) at all.
- dont these people have brains ?
One has to wonder at that one. But then, thanks to gubmint shools, people have been conditioned not to actually engage their brains but to follow a system that is results oriented.
- excpting the big screens, its likely they have a Bible -
I'm sure many do have Bibles, covered in dust, and are too lazy to do the study themselves.
and Im confident God will reach them despite Osteens feel good message
So, you are going to disregard the commands of God to the contrary?
Sounds more like a hyper-Calvinist.
I certainly agree that you have to start with milk before you can move on to the meat. I think part of the problem with Osteen is that they're getting Similac. It's got similar properties to milk, but it's just not milk.
I do disagree with the notion that you have to start with love and forgiveness. Scripture and history are both full of examples of a less-than-gentle presentation of the Gospel. I'm not saying we therefore shouldn't present it in the manner you describe, just that neither way is the only way to do it.
>>You start with love, and forgiveness - building from there into repentance, and a well rounded faith<<
IMO, it ought to be the other way around. How can somoene know why they need love and forgiveness if they don't know what they're being forgiven from? In order to appreciate God's mercy, you have to first understand why you need it.
Which is why in a lot of cases, Osteen's message just comes across as an add-on to the unsaved persons life. It makes Jesus into a holy ATM card.
"You're ok - but Jesus can make you better!"
"Well, great, but if I'm already ok to begin with, why do I need anything else?"
...sort of thing.
I for one have never said you will be saved despite your Arminianism. Nor will I be saved because of my Calvinism. We are all saved by faith in Christ. That is enough to get us past any error that anyone of us might have.
In fact RN came to Christ via the RCC didnt she ?
I think she would disagree with that.
The bigger question here is this: The RC church, despite of the multitude of disagreements I have with the on a wide variety of issues, does have sin and Christ woven throughout their doctrine. Osteen, Warren, Shuller don't. They are all about wealth, self-help, and prosperity. How can the believe without hearing?