Posted on 11/05/2014 5:18:11 PM PST by Gamecock
Pastor Joel Osteens TV ad announcing his new show on Sirius Radio begins with the promise, We can have victory every single day. Next come scenes of his pastoral team on stage during a church service, followed by a long shot of the congregation that looks as if it was filmed in the Super Bowl with every seat filled. (He reportedly has the largest congregation in the United States.)
Finally, he comes back on screen and declares to the audience, There is a power in you greater than any power that comes against you.
After seeing the ad for about the 200th time, I sent the following email message to some friends:
Ive seen the Osteen ad many, many times and my reaction has been the same each timeI have felt a powerful urge to convert . . . . . . to Buddhism!
What made me descend to such curmudgeonly pique? Was it because Osteens face appears locked in a smile that shouts insincere (at least to me) or because he and his wife call to mind the 1970s and 80s preaching duo of unhappy memory, Jim and Tammy Bakker? Was it because Osteens trademark black hair is beautifully coiffed and boasts innumerable curls in the back? Might I be jealous of that?
The honest answer to all three questions is yes. But there is another, more substantive reason for my negative reaction. It is that Osteens message is presumptuous and misleading, not to mention smarmy and glib. (I know, I know, smarminess and glibness are not serious flaws, so lets put them aside.)
First, presumptuous. The line you have power in you greater than any power that can come against you obviously refers to more than simple talent and potential and probably to more than being created in the image and likeness of God. The most likely intended meaning is the gift of the Holy Spirit that Christians call grace.
The problem, however, is his notion that this power (grace) is automatically in us by virtue of our being alive. In contrast, Christianity teaches that grace is a gift that God gives us but does not force upon us. We either accept it or reject it, and that choice determines whether we experience its power. This crucial fact Osteen seems to ignore when he presumes that everyone possesses grace automatically.
Now lets consider misleading. At the heart of Osteens message is the promise of daily success in life: We can have victory every single day. Surely he is not referring to the victory of being received into paradise, which comes only once (if we are lucky), after death. What then does he mean? I consulted Osteens website for the answer and found this:
You have been blessed for unprecedented success. God has healing with your name on it, new dreams with your name on it [sic], promotions with your name on it [sic]. You are a child of Almighty God. He has already gone before you and lined up promotion, victory, and favor in your life.
With the exception of healing, these things come under the heading worldly success, so that is what Osteen must mean by victory. Oddly, however, he denies that this is his meaning. For example, he has said, If prosperity means God wants us to be blessed and healthy and have good relationships then yes, Im a prosperity teacher. But if its about money, no, I never preach about money . . .
Osteen is being disingenuous. His themes may technically not be about money, but they are about promotion, favor, abundance, etc., so they might as well be about money. Consider a more specific example from Osteens Message # 619, Its Already Yours:
Psalm 8:5 says, You have crowned him with favor and honor. What does this mean for you today? It means right now, there are blessings with your name on themhealing, promotion, good breaks, houses, businesses, contractsthat already belong to you. The question is, when are you going to go get whats already yours? [Bold added]
The word money doesnt appear in this passage, but the words in bold certainly stand for financial success and that spells financial prosperity, also known as money.
At this point readers who embrace Osteens prosperity gospel would no doubt respond Whats wrong with saying God rewards those who love him with prosperity? My first impulse is to respond, If there is nothing wrong with the prosperity gospel, why is Osteen so determined not to be associated with it? But here is a more meaningful response:
What is wrong with prosperity preaching is that it grossly distorts the Christian message.
To begin with, Isaiah didnt prophesy a prosperous Christ but a suffering servant who would be despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Isaiah 53: 3)
Then, too, Jesus was born in a stable and lived a modest life with Mary and Joseph, so it is a reasonable assumption that neither Joseph nor Jesus was the sort of carpenter whose work brought that ages equivalent of Ethan Allen or Thomasville prices.
In the most famous of all sermons, Jesus Sermon on the Mount, not a single one of the blessings mentioned suggests daily victory of any kind, let alone financial victory. They speak instead of daily spiritual stress, mourning, hunger, and persecution. The fact that Jesus called those who suffer these burdens blessed is best understood as a promise of eventual consolation or reward beyond this vale of tears.
The only place in Scripture where Jesus and prosperity are mentioned together is when Satan offers it to HimThe devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. All this I will give you, he said, if you will bow down and worship me. (Matthew 4: 8-9) In rejecting Satans offer Jesus did not condemn prosperity, to be sure, but He certainly didnt laud it either.
Jesus did, of course, tell his disciples that they could achieve anything if they had sufficient faith. For example, he said that they could move a mountain. (Matthew 21: 21-22) But in the next breath He added that the way to do so is to ask in prayer, believing, underscoring that the power obviously resides in God rather than in us.
Jesus often reminded his disciples that the way to follow him was to deny themselves and take up their crosses every day. (Matthew 10:38 and 16:24, Luke 9:23, Luke 14: 27 and 18:18-22) The references to crosses obviously did not concern daily victories but, on the contrary, disappointments and sufferings. In our time those would include unemployment, accidents, the wounds of war, deadly diseases, emotional disorders, and the infirmities of old age.
Jesus provided the supreme example of suffering courageously as He prayed, sweating blood, in the Garden of Gethsemane, was mercilessly scourged at the pillar and humiliated by the Roman soldiers, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a cross. Moreover, in the final throes of suffocation and exsanguination, He felt forsaken by God.
Down through the centuries, the message that has framed the Christian perspective on living has been Jesus words, take up your cross and follow me. His disciples were the first to do so, and every one of them suffered a violent death. The early Christians were required to practice their faith in secret or face imprisonment and death. And Christian martyrdom continues in our time. In 2013 alone, 2,123 Christians were murdered for practicing their faith.
Promising daily victory and worldly success insults all those who maintain their faith in Jesus despite suffering and disappointment. Rather than raising their spirits and giving them hope, it tempts them to think, If I am not prospering, maybe God doesnt love me. Worse, it tempts the wealthy and successful to believe that they really are more virtuous and deserving than the poor and thus to adopt the attitude of the Pharisee: God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. (Luke: 18:11)
Whenever I hear Osteen or others preach the prosperity gospel, I am reminded of Jesus advice to the young man who lived honorably and wondered what more he could do to achieve an even better spiritual state. Jesus did not tell him to claim and enjoy the first century equivalent of promotion[s], good breaks, houses, businesses, contracts. Instead, he advised him to go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. (Mark 10: 21-22)
The prosperity gospel is understandably appealing in this self-absorbed age, but because it replaces the cross with a dollar sign, it bears no resemblance to the Gospel of Jesus.
It always amazes me how willing people are to accept blatant error in order to avoid conflict.
Were are to use scripture to guide our doctrine when it is plain, and not dispute and fall out of fellowship where it is not plain. For "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 2 Tim 3:16
And as far as going along to get along is concerned, that's fine and dandy until they start burning believers at the stake because of non-conformance to their non-biblical traditions.
Even if I conceded these points, the separatists and protestants came about because the RC refused to be reformed from it's many errors. Both the 12 conclusions of the Lollards and Luther's 95 theses attempted to do so. However, the RC was dogmatic in it's errors, racking and burning dissenters by the thousands.
See Matthew 15:6 "...Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
If it were not for the separatists and protestants, you'd still be hearing mass in Latin and looking at Latin bibles, and having no idea whether what you heard was remotely Biblical! Ever been even a little curious why the RC fought so hard to keep the Bible out of the common tongue (especially English)?
The only place in Scripture where Jesus and prosperity are mentioned together is when Satan offers it to HimThe devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. All this I will give you, he said, if you will bow down and worship me. (Matthew 4: 8-9)
I wish I could remember to mention this whenever the prosperity gospel comes up
**The prosperity gospel is understandably appealing in this self-absorbed age, but because it replaces the cross with a dollar sign, it bears no resemblance to the Gospel of Jesus.**
BTTT!
The religion I follow isn’t a clone of Catholicism. It’s based on the Bible (with a capital B).
The Reformation did not skip over all that Catholicism held, and but in accordance with "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good, (1 Thessalonians 5:21) it rejected many, if not all, false teachings, while historically they and its descendants likewise hold Scripture to be the supreme authority as literally being the assured wholly inspired and accurate word of God have been ardent defenders of Truth we both concur with. And even today evangelicals are overall much more unified in the most basic beliefs than the fruit of Rome.
Meanwhile, there was no 1500 years of Catholicism by the time of the Reformation, but there was about 1400 years of progressive deformation of the prima NT church, which yet needs full recovery .
But with the recalcitrant church of Rome it reached a point where the imperfect Reformation became a necessity as Rome has become and is as the gates of Hell for multitudes (i was one), which church as the body of Christ overcomes and continues, by God's grace and to His glory. Amen.
and then pick up on Christianity at the point of the Reformation and then claim it, and the Catholic bible as your own.
It was not Catholics that penned Scripture, nor is a perpetual infallible magisterium promised or necessary for its discernment and transmission.
But is your argument that if one affirms some of what the (claimed) stewards of Scripture hold then it means such should concur with all that the latter holds?
Then you cherry pick the parts of the bible you like, write a new version minus certain chapters, and claim sola scriptura after copping off with another religions (Catholic) bible and claiming you have the one true way. What conceit.
So your argument is that the Protestant OT was a new version, that had no antiquity, but that Reformers dissented from an infallible canon, and made that binding?
Or that Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares? And which is not conceit?
Then the new Protestant religions break up into hundreds of other Protestant religions until most are so watered down as to become mere shadows of the one true Christian religion (Catholicism) that they all cloned off of.
So those watered down Protestants religions are those who do not hold to the primary distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture literally being the assured wholly inspired and accurate word of God and thus the supreme authority, or that those who hold to the latter are watered down, while those Prot churches which typically are closer to Rome are the best?
And that Catholicism itself does not exist in schism and sects, with only a limited paper unity, while in reality her actions much teach otherwise, and is reflected in what her multitudes manifestly believe. And that what RCs can and do disagree on is extensive? How much of RC teaching is even infallibly defined?
And of course one mans sola scriptura (interpretation of Gods word in the bible) is different from the next sects interpretation of the bible, until you have thousands of interpretations of a bible that wasnt even initially (for 1500 years) yours.
You mean that those who hold most strongly to that primary distinctive of the Reformation are less unified in basic Truths than the fruit of Rome, and water them down? And again, that we are to always follow the historical stewards of Scripture?
And that under the alternative, that of sola ecclesia (the church being supreme), Rome's teachings are so clear, sure and extensive that it precludes variant interpretations?
And that she has authoritatively defined Scripture (where?) to such a great extent that RCs do not have a great deal of liberty to adopt varied interpretations to defend Rome?
And that we should look to Catholic scholarship for Bible commentary, such as in the official RC NAB Bible on the Vatican web site?
And most important, that unity under the premise of the instruments and stewards of Scripture being the infallible interpreters of it is what is Biblical, versus even common people discerning both men and writings are of God, sometimes in conflict with the magisterium?
Your assertions are based upon presuppositions, for which you have much to answer for. Waiting.
YACVPT???
Words of the wise to a CATHOLIC church...
To hear some of our FR Catholics tell it...
Go it. See above post if interested.
Hateful BIGOT!
WHY did you leave out the ONLY true church today??
The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latterday Saints
—Mormon_Dude(When would be a good time for...)
I’ll take Jesus’ saving grace over worldly riches, thank you very much.
Which must be SO lame they cannot keep EVIL men from leading it!!
Pope Stephen VI (896897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (10321044, 1045, 10471048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (12941303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (13781389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (14921503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (15131521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (15231534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
We like your NEW pope...
It does, however, mention...
Well; according to Mormonism...
The Articles of Faith outline 13 basic points of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Prophet Joseph Smith first wrote them in a letter to John Wentworth, a newspaper editor,
in response to Mr. Wentworth's request to know what members of the Church believed.
They were subsequently published in Church periodicals.
They are now regarded as scripture and included in the Pearl of Great Price.
THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535541
Joseph Smith |
O...
K...
Goodness gracious! How many wpm do you type?!!!
“you have power in you greater than any power that can come against you”
1 John4:1-3 came to mind when I read that statement and it chills me. You quoted verse 4 but compare his statements against verses 1-3.
I hear very little Christ Jesus in Osteen’s preachings. He doesn’t acknowledge “Christ in us”, instead he refers to Him as “a power in us” that unlocks access to material things. It pings the spiritual ‘antichrist’ ping o meter far off the scale. Daniel comes to mind...the depiction of the one who “worships the god of ‘forces’”.
I’d urge all to stay away from Osteen like a road kill skunk!
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.