Prosperity Preaching Is Not Christian (Osteen)

But, none are as blind as those who refuse to look.

True...

Acts 17:10-11 (KJV)
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Dear SR, I enjoy going back and forth with you because I think you are not someone who just engages in cut-and-paste duels ("I'll see your Matthew 16:18 and raise you Galatians 2:11 and 2 Corinthians 11") but someone who puts the gear-wheels together and does a good deal of actual engaging.

If people on both sides (or all sides) have the wit, they can all use logic and a couple clobber-verses and invariably come to their own most comfortable conclusions; but the important thing is to examine the "different sets of assumptions," as you said. That's why these discussions we have at the FRRF go round and round so tediously and fruitlessly --- and then turn into snark, frustration and anger --- because we're not getting underneath and examining assumptions.

Having said all that --- I still am not in a position to get all into it today. Yesterday my mind was all occupied with Sam's burial; today I have other pressing tasks that I have to kick myself into doing. Do not think I am absenting myself from the volleys because I am daunted, or because I am disrespecting your discussion.

If don-o or somebody else wants to take it up, that's fine. I have to overcome my sloth. I have a sneaky sloth: I do stuff I don't have to do (joust with people on FR) and avoid things I really do have to do, which are the obligations of my state in life.

Don-o knows that! ;op

See you later. Carry on.

We make a different set of assumptions about the scope and nature of the Ecclesia BECAUSE Jesus invites us to look not at superficialities like geography or outward appearances, but inwardly, to the spirit, and to truth, as the grounds of proper worship of God.

Are you quite certain that you are not reasoning from your conclusions? What can be the meaning of His prayer for His Apostles in John 17, especially verses 21 - 23? (Not a big fan of block quotes of Scripture, but this was important when I went searching.)

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

This idea of "oneness" means something or He would not have mentioned it. Acts 15 shows us that it meant enough to the Apostles that they had to come together to consider two radically different ideas about what was needful to be a Christian.

It meant enough to St Ignatius of Antioch, believed to be taught by St John, that he repeatedly commands unity with the Bishop.

These men did not have the luxury of spiritualizing the plain words that our Lord had left them. Their words and their actions reveal a clear fidelity to the unity idea that they had been given.

(I hope my comment is not taken as "mind reading". I am asking questions.)

Are you quite certain that you are not reasoning from your conclusions? What can be the meaning of His prayer for His Apostles in John 17, especially verses 21 - 23? (Not a big fan of block quotes of Scripture, but this was important when I went searching.)

No one is free of the risk of circular reasoning. Any skeptic reading these Protestant/Catholic debates doubtless sees even our shared assumptions about belief God and His holiness as circular reasoning in some respects. We don't address those because we hold those assumptions in common. Someone once said (I forget who, might have been Aristotle) that circular reasoning is fine, as long as the circles are small enough. By that we mean axiomatic, self-evident truth.

But as between each other, we have a discrepancy in axioms. That's kind of like having a split in the federal circuits, which must then be resolved by appeal to the Supreme Court. We see that unity of which Christ spoke as a real, spiritual bond that exists between all who are born of the spirit, who have a share in the Holy Spirit, are led by the Spirit and mind of Christ, and as a consequence of that spiritual unity, have substantial unity in matters of faith and practice as grounded in Scripture.

And this is a practical unity. I have encountered many believers over the course of my six decades and am repeatedly amazed at the bond of love we share in Christ, regardless of the superficial trappings of most denominational labels, which most often have more to do with history than doctrine. These are people who supposedly are total strangers, yet we both know and love Him, and His word, and that makes all the difference.

Whereas, without attempting to read your mind, I surmise that you view unity as self-evidently requiring a shared human organization, complete with a corporate headquarters in Rome, and the pedigree of an apostolic genealogy. In which case you must build into your interpretation of Scripture these badges of unity from your denomination's later history, which will then be used to confirm your authority to define and interpret those very Scriptures. Dizzying.

Which means that, the Roman paradigm for unity is self-defining. Rome defines what unity is, mostly a paper fiction, as the rank and file are always so "poorly catechized," and then claims to have the unity it defined for itself, eliminating, on paper, any outliers as "not true Scotsmen anyway." Very cozy.

So it becomes an unfalsifiable system. And that's a problem. Something that can't be falsified can't be shown to be true either. At least with a claim of adherence to Scripture, there is some hope of falsification. Someone who claims to follow Scripture, yet denies the virgin birth, or the deity of Christ, or the resurrection, or the traditional family, or the sanctity of human life, can be refuted, from Scripture, in a manner that will appeal to men and women of good conscience. We can test their claims to fidelity to divinely inspired truth, and reach a place of satisfaction that their claim is true or false.

Now, I know this isn't even a beginning of a good comparison between Catholic and Protestant epistemologies, but I hope you can see we are impeded by the problem of seriously divergent axioms. We see all the extra baggage Rome has taken on in the name of doctrinal development, and it is staring us in the face as self-evident that it doesn't match the generic Christianity described in such detail in Scripture, that Rome is therefore the schismatic. We then look at the unfalsifiable claims of Roman unity, and they roll off our back like nothing, because unity itself means nothing if not grounded in truth, in accordance with Jesus' teaching that the true worship of God is a matter of spirit and truth, not geography or pedigree.

But then the standard Catholic response kicks in, which begins not with Scripture but with Rome, that we have drawn conclusions from Scripture to which we are not entitled, and therefore our grounds for rejection of Rome don't have ... wait for it ... the sanction of Rome, and must therefore be invalid. To which we cry, "Orbis Magnus!" Big Circle, because that response draws the orbit of its logic around the earth, beginning and ending at Rome, a temporal association of mortal men and women, and not around the eternal Son of God, and the word of God that reveals Him to us. Catholic epistemology is still in need of that spiritual Copernican revolution. A great deal now that seems unduly complex will resolve to an elegant simplicity, once you have the center right.

This idea of "oneness" means something or He would not have mentioned it. Acts 15 shows us that it meant enough to the Apostles that they had to come together to consider two radically different ideas about what was needful to be a Christian.

It is always going to be in the nature of the Ecclesia to have to fight back against error, and nothing in the fundamentally spiritual nature of being the Ecclesia precludes its members from coming together in human associations of those who share the faith of the Gospel to decide how best to present a united front against error. Quite the opposite. We would expect the love of Christ for His sheep to appear in the form of guidance from the undershepherds, including cooperation among them. But not only them, but all those of the flock who hear His voice and will follow only Him. And never would we expect those transient, fallible human associations, if truly guided by Christ, to take on a life of their own, an empty organizational unity, quite capable of running without godly leadership at the helm, a ghost ship sailing forward with no clear reliance on the Spirit of God or the mind of Christ.

It meant enough to St Ignatius of Antioch, believed to be taught by St John, that he repeatedly commands unity with the Bishop.

Three things about Ignatius:

1) My understanding is he may or may not have been a direct disciple of John. There is a tradition to that effect, but the epistles between them do not confirm it

2) But more to the point, his words do not have the sanction of divine inspiration. It is worth considering what he says, but our contention all along has been that the Roman schism began in small steps as a move away from a sound, Biblical ecclesiology, and so we expect to find departures from Scripture appearing in various post-apostolic leaders.

3) But it may be too great a burden to lay that blame on Ignatius, because in context, his advice appears to be directed to respecting the overseer of the local congregation, not some vast as yet unformed pyramid of ecclesiastical overlords capped off with a pope. As such, his instruction would be acceptable in any number of Bapitistic or Reformed settings.

These men did not have the luxury of spiritualizing the plain words that our Lord had left them. Their words and their actions reveal a clear fidelity to the unity idea that they had been given.

It is no luxury, but a matter of necessity of conscience, to take the abundant testimony of Scripture seriously concerning the explicitly spiritual nature of the Ecclesia. The idea that the living stones of Christ's temple could become totally identified with an earthly organization defined in carnal terms and tied to a geographic center such as Rome is antithetical to the Biblical record. You suggest I am reasoning from my conclusions (always a valid concern, BTW, and I take no offense at the charge, though I deny it), but if one assumes that Christian oneness must look like Rome's definition of it, and reads that back into both John and Ignatius, that is circular reasoning.

(I hope my comment is not taken as "mind reading". I am asking questions.)

No problem. Charges such as circular reasoning or excessive spiritualization are fair game in these debates, as the claimed basis is analysis of an openly presented argument, not the secret places of the heart before God. So we're good. :)

Peace,

SR

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

You know, I really do believe that preachers like Osteen and other "prosperity" types are doing a great disservice to their listeners because they are presenting a "Santa Claus" kind of God who can and will give us everything our hearts desire. What totally gets missed is the lesson God is trying to teach us THROUGH suffering and need. If God really was like Santa Claus, a sugar "daddy" or the Fairy Godmother who grant every wish we could ever have, who wouldn't follow after him??? If for nothing else but having our every wish, want or desire granted like a Genie with the proverbial "three wishes", where would true, genuine and enduring faith come from? How can it be tested and purified if not by fiery trial?

It is only when we see God provide for our needs and walk with us through the valley of the shadow of death that we come to know Him as Father, Lord, Master, Savior and Shepherd. I had a professor in college who used to tell us that as long as we could still move our pinkie finger, we'd be okay. The kind of faith Jesus begins and ends in us is the kind that endures IN SPITE of outward circumstances. It is this kind of faith that can move mountains, testify to the lost world and glorify Almighty God. I thank Him for the hardships because I know they are for a greater purpose - HIS glory.

I've come to believe that, until we get to the point - as Job did - where we can honestly say, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.", we will never reach the full potential of our faith. It may be until we get to heaven before we fully understand God's purpose and will behind the suffering He has permitted into our lives, but we WILL one day and I am willing to wait. It's either trust Him because He is God and He loves us or reject that there even IS a God - and I've already seen too much for that to ever be the case.

I continue to remember you in my prayers.

If people on both sides (or all sides) have the wit, they can all use logic and a couple clobber-verses and invariably come to their own most comfortable conclusions; but the important thing is to examine the "different sets of assumptions," as you said. That's why these discussions we have at the FRRF go round and round so tediously and fruitlessly --- and then turn into snark, frustration and anger --- because we're not getting underneath and examining assumptions.

I think one of the MAJOR reasons for the endless, tedious, repetitive and fruitless go-rounds we see here in the RF is not so much that some want to "clobber" an adversary or only seek "comfortable" conclusions - though I don't deny that may very well be the motivation of a few - but that, when ones argument is proved untrue, instead of acknowledging the correction, the faulty view is grasped stubbornly closer. It then gets repeated in another thread as if no correction had ever been made. Can you help me understand why that continues to go on?

Examining assumptions is a worthwhile pursuit but what good is it when the assumption is based on the conviction that one cannot ever be wrong? Over the nearly ten years I've been a member, I am still surprised to read threads that make assumptions and assert things that I know have been countered dozens of times on the SAME forum. It's as if saying something is true makes it true. Perhaps in the interest of truly advancing the educational benefits of having an open Religion Forum, we should try to reign in those kinds of threads that are repetitive and which we know ahead of time will cause snark, anger and frustration - because they already have every time?

Thanks.

And I am praying for you and your mom.