JOEL OSTEEN BLESSES THE MORMON CHURCH

In the Apprising Ministries article Joel Osteen: Apprising His Word Faith Teachings I have clearly showed those who are looking for the truth that Osteen teaches the exact same positive confession Word Faith theology and prosperity gospel as did his late father John, Kenneth “Dad” Hagin (1917-2003), and which is also currently being preached by Hagin’s dutiful disciple Kenneth Copeland and Oneness Pentecostal T.D. Jakes for that matter.

The unique twist that Joel Osteen has added to the mix is the syrupy sweet self-help shtick of Robert Schuller cleverly mixed together for his most popular brand of “Cotton-Candy Christianity.” I am not judging his motivations, or his heart, so I can only say that Osteen’s found the way to preach that his god wants you to have: “Heaven while you're on earth, and then when you die, you get...ah—well, even more Heaven.”

Sadly another sign of the growing spiritual blindness and apostasy in the American Christian Church right now that someone like Joel Osteen is steadily gaining much acceptance even among mainstream evangelicalism. And this comes despite a theology completely consistent with other mainstays on the Trinity Broadcasting Network such as Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley and “pastor” Paula White.

But the news gets even worse for Joel Osteen because running on a parallel track the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) is also beginning to make inroads toward being considered a legitimate form of Christianity. As case in point we offer Mormons and Evangelicals Ready to Worship Together? But what does this even have to do with Joel Osteen? Well, I’m so glad you asked.

Osteen heads up arguably the largest evangelical church in the country. So here he was on Fox News Sunday a couple of weeks ago saying that in his mind Mormons are genuine Christians as I originally pointed out in Joel Osteen: Mitt Romney And Mormons Are Christians. But the saddest news of all may be that now Joel Osteen has pronounced blessing on the non-Christian cult of the Mormon Church as being Christian; and there is no outrage, and no evangelical leaders publicly calling Osteen to account.

No instead, it’s just business as usual in the apostatizing American Christian Church saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace (Jeremiah 6:14, KJV).

I don’t think every Christian who has questions about Mormons (or anyone else) hates Mormons....that’s silly.

Mormons are strange to us dear....plain and simple.

Your history of polygamy and your not so distant bloody wars within your church and your modern prophets and their unusual (to us) dreams cause some mainline Christians to wonder what you are all about.

I myself am unsure....I generally share the same cultural perspectives as Mormons and that’s good enough for me and I would vote for a Mormon...it may even come to Romney in the end....although he’s not a serious Mormon if it took him till 50 years of age to become pro-life when he decided to run for President.

I watch Zion films too and like them....

but.....would you be so gung ho for Mitt where he not a member of your sect?

be honest about it.

I don’t think Mormons should be immune to queries about their creed anymore than anyone else.....

I don’t know enough about ya’ll to say if I think you are apostate...

I think Osteen is a high living osteentatious life coach who blends his good works Christianity in.....and to be candid.....yep, he’s apostate to me.

Less on luxury and more on purely salvation would go long way with me......and forget good works as the key to heaven....baloney

Saundra,
I have read all the post and I wanted to respond to you. Many times Mormons use the same words as Christians yet they have different meanings.
Same words, different dictionary.

The most distinct and defining difference is Christians believe Jesus Christ is God. That is a huge difference, of gigantic proportions.

Mormon faith teaches that one must do enough good works to earn themselves a higher level of heaven. A true Christian is obedient to God’s word because we love him, not out of obligation. Believers are going to heaven because of God, it is not anything we will do or have done.
When you ask a child to wash the dishes, most often they will grumble about it and complain because they see no benefit in doing it. However, if that same child decides to do the dishes, without being asked, in order to make their parents happy and they decide to sweep the floor without being asked, than the parents are blessed by it. If all you ever did was truly believe in Jesus Christ, that is enough! It is finished. But we continue to grow in our obedience to his word because we know it pleases him. After all, he died for us, even while HE KNEW we were sinners. It is for freedom that God died. (read Galatians 5). What is this freedom he was talking about. It is freedom from performance religion.

I could go on and on, but I can tell you one thing. I pray that my Mormon friends will come to understand what God’s grace is all about. They are simply wearing themselves out trying to earn their way to heaven. see this website:
http://concernedchristians.org/

When you say “Mormons aren’t Christians” you are saying that we do not love the Savior

I won't presume to speak for T, but you shouldn't jump to such a conclusion. Please understand that words have meanings, and "Christian" is no different. From the Preface to C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity:

Far deeper objections may be felt - and have been expressed - against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: 'Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?': or 'May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?' Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman 'originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone 'a gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - 'Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man 'a gentleman' in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is 'a gentleman' becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes. (A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We' cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.