A Peculiar Kind of Gospel

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sozo

New member
godrulz... I addressed your points one by one, and, once again, you ignore them to hold on to your religion, and your rejection of Christ. If you want to come to the truth, then you have got to debate the points one at a time.

btw... Rick Warren is one of the greatest false teachers in the world today, and it is no surprise to me that you would mention him.

Rick Warren’s church-growth developments are reminiscent of movements within the church during the latter part of the 20th century, e.g., the Latter Rain movement, Kingdom Now theology, Dominionism, and Christian Reconstructionism. All of these promoted the religious humanistic idea that Christianity, through the application of biblical principles or signs and wonders, would transform the earth into a paradise and thereby convert the majority of its population to Christ.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

That was a great post, Sozo, and I agree with everything but the David thing. There was a point where David did sin, and that was the bathsheeba incident, but a couple of things were going on there, I think.

First of all, he was a lot like the pre-conversion Peter, and although he was a man after God's heart (a compassionate man, devoted to God's cause) he did not understand what it meant to be righteous. After he royally screwed up, he came to the end of himself, just as Peter did, after he denied his Lord. After all that, then David said, "blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity" or something like that. You get the idea.

Now, because he was God's anointed one, similar to Peter's baptism, in a way, he was guiltless in God's eyes. And Nathan told David that God had already put away his sin. Because otherwise David would have had to be under a mountain of stones for what he did.

Now, what do you think of that?

The OT is a different covenant than the NT. OT people were as much believers as NT people. David illustrates humanity and free will and was a believer and sinned. Your theology does not allow NT believers to sin, so you make an artificial distinction between OT and NT believers. OT believers have wills and were not supposed to sin. NT believers do not have wills anymore and cannot possibly sin and the Law does not apply to them because we are in Christ. So, if a believer sins (adultery, lust, etc.), they must not be a true NT believer OR the act, thought was not really a sin because the Law was thrown out the window and is only used against unbelievers to condemn them in the NT??

David(believer): Against you only God have I sinned (repentance, humility, renewed obedience/worship).

NT (believer): I did the same thing as David (but God is blind due to the blood), but I am not under the law, so that means I did not really sin. I am free in Christ. I can continue with my affair if I want. I should not do it...wait...I CANNOT sin, so maybe this is just a dream or sin is no longer really sin. Maybe it was my twin brother?:doh:
 
Last edited:

julie21

New member
...jumping in at the deep end...
If I was a believer pre Crucifixion, then I fell under the Law andany sin I committed was atoned for by the action of burnt offerings and other offerings through the Priesthood.

When Jesus spoke to the adultress woman, His words to her were "Go and sin no more." He did not tell her that He would make it impossible for her to not sin again. His death covered the sins of all believers, and was the new covenant that God made with us...that we could have eternal life if we believe in Him...not...if we never sin again.
I believe in Him, and that it is by His grace, not works, that I am saved.
But, believing does not stop me making sinful choices...it does make me aware afterwards that I have sinned,and so must strive to not repeat my sinful choice.
I was not made perfect. The one who died for me is, and I believe that He forgives me for my imperfections,when I ask Him, as long as I keep trying to be more like Him.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

godrulz... I addressed your points one by one, and, once again, you ignore them to hold on to your religion, and your rejection of Christ. If you want to come to the truth, then you have got to debate the points one at a time.

btw... Rick Warren is one of the greatest false teachers in the world today, and it is no surprise to me that you would mention him.

Rick Warren’s church-growth developments are reminiscent of movements within the church during the latter part of the 20th century, e.g., the Latter Rain movement, Kingdom Now theology, Dominionism, and Christian Reconstructionism. All of these promoted the religious humanistic idea that Christianity, through the application of biblical principles or signs and wonders, would transform the earth into a paradise and thereby convert the majority of its population to Christ.

I do not know much about Rick Warren. He seems to be a run of the mill Baptist/Calvinist. 40 days of purpose is having positive impact on churches and lives. Have you read the book?

What do you object to about his simple Bible teachings on worship, fellowship, the glory of God, discipleship/character, service, mission, etc.

Is there any other Christian besides yourself that has any truth or ministry validity?

Once again, narrow minded sozo is right and hundreds of millions of godly, trained believers and leaders are dead wrong (false teachers).

If you have not read Warren's book, you have no credibility to criticize his beliefs. You may object to your perceptions of his church growth method (whatever that is...love God and love people is probably what he promotes), but at least people are growing in their faith and coming to Christ through the small groups established by the churches through 40 days. His first tape calls people to repentant faith in Christ. I suspect he will have more impact for the Kingdom than you or I ever will.

There is something wrong with an individual who thinks everyone else is wrong and no one has a valid ministry. I disagree with many ministries and individuals, but it would be god-like presumption to label them as unbelievers or false teachers in every way.

How familiar are you really with Rick Warren? I do not know details, but am leading a group through 6 weeks of his study. I sense the Spirit and am seeing lives changed as we focus on basic truths. You would have to really nit pick with his simple reading of texts and Sunday School explanations of the verses to label him a false teacher. Cmon, sozo, show some discernment. Give me an example from his book that proves he is a false teacher (I disagree with his view that God knows the future exhaustively. Most would say I am the false teacher. The majority believe his view. Guess what, this is not a heaven-hell issue!).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by julie21

...jumping in at the deep end...
If I was a believer pre Crucifixion, then I fell under the Law andany sin I committed was atoned for by the action of burnt offerings and other offerings through the Priesthood.

When Jesus spoke to the adultress woman, His words to her were "Go and sin no more." He did not tell her that He would make it impossible for her to not sin again. His death covered the sins of all believers, and was the new covenant that God made with us...that we could have eternal life if we believe in Him...not...if we never sin again.
I believe in Him, and that it is by His grace, not works, that I am saved.
But, believing does not stop me making sinful choices...it does make me aware afterwards that I have sinned,and so must strive to not repeat my sinful choice.
I was not made perfect. The one who died for me is, and I believe that He forgives me for my imperfections,when I ask Him, as long as I keep trying to be more like Him.

Run away...you are about to be blasted by sozo as a false teacher and a Christ-hater.

Pre-crucifixion animal sacrifices did not atone for sin. The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world alone dealt with sin. The animal sacrifices were a shadow/type of the reality of Christ that was to come. They had no power to atone or Christ's death would not be necessary. They merely pointed to the future sacrifice. They were a temporary 'covering' and point of obedience. They were powerless to bring redemption in themselves.

I agree that the NT talks about obedient choices and exhorts us to no longer live in the flesh. It is disingenuous to say a believer has no free will and cannot sin. We do not have to sin, we should not sin, but it is theoretically possible to sin (I Jn. ) (despite some ideas that spirit and flesh distinctions mean that we cannot possibly sin).
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

I do not know details, but am leading a group through 6 weeks of his study.

Jesus, please deliver those people from the mind of this man who knows you not.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

Jesus, please deliver those people from the mind of this man who knows you not.

What is your specific criticism of Warren's book? It is endorsed by some of the greatest leaders in the Church today (oh, I forgot, even Billy Graham does not preach sozo's gospel).

It is strange that we sense the presence of God in our group as we honor Him in worship and study and apply His Word. He blesses, while sozo-god curses the presence of God in others except himself and those who uncritically agree with him.

Sozo treats me like I am a Mormon or JW. Clearly he lacks discernment and acts like he is part of an exclusivistic cult or sect.

I am done with you and your ignorant assumptions.

I would prefer you do not waste your breath interacting with my thoughts. You do not show respect for fellow believers, so have lost credibility and a right to be heard or an influence in a public forum (accusing them of being Christ-haters, grieving the heart of God...I am bought with a price...how dare you negate the work of Christ and my relationship with Him...to do so means you are playing god and know the thoughts and beliefs of the heart).

Shame on the moderators for siding with sozo and proclaiming him a great teacher. His unique ideas do not compensate for his arrogance, immaturity, and lack of discernment into spiritual matters.:(
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

I am done with you and your ignorant assumptions.

... know the thoughts and beliefs of the heart
I judge you, based on what you teach. Should anyone do otherwise?
Shame on the moderators for siding with sozo and proclaiming him a great teacher. His unique ideas do not compensate for his arrogance, immaturity, and lack of discernment into spiritual matters
On the contrary, shame on you for your lack of discernment and defense of a gospel that Paul declares the teachers of, to be accursed.
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

It is endorsed by some of the greatest leaders in the Church today

btw... this is just another of many shining examples, from you, that you do not worship God, but men.
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

What is your specific criticism of Warren's book?
I have been contemplating a thread to discuss this for some time. However, for now, I will just say that his gospel resembles a pop-psychology Jesus through a mass marketing campaign.

Instead of presenting the gospel of Jesus for men to accept, he has created a Jesus that is acceptable to men.

Once you use an abundance of techniques to make Jesus acceptable to people, then you have to maintain that facade, less the people look somewhere else.
 
Last edited:

Lawless

New member
Quote: Godrulz


You misinterpret the intent of the passages on the law. We are under grace, but this does not mean that the universal moral code is meaningless and lawlessness rules. We are not under the law, but if we rebel and disobey volitionally, the law will condemn us and drive us back to surrender and grace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How can the Law condemn what the precious Blood of Jesus paid for?

"do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

I judge you, based on what you teach. Should anyone do otherwise? On the contrary, shame on you for your lack of discernment and defense of a gospel that Paul declares the teachers of, to be accursed.

What was the context of Galatians 1? Am I a Judaizer? Please share my posts that would place me in the category of those who have another gospel preached by an angel. I do not deny justification by faith in Christ alone.

You could apply the verses in Galatians by way of principle to the Mormons and Moroni. I adhere to a standard evangelical statement of faith and do not preach a different gospel from most evangelicals. I affirm the Trinity, Deity of Christ, justification by grace/faith, etc. Your accusations are an example of poor interpretation and application of Gal. 1.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

btw... this is just another of many shining examples, from you, that you do not worship God, but men.

I worship God in spirit and truth. How dare you say I WORSHIP men because I agree with some of their teachings. Those who agreed with Paul did not worship him!

You once gave a list of authors you agree with. Does this mean that you worship them?

I sense God's presence and pleasure as I worship privately or with His people. Who are you to say I worship men, and not the living God?:doh:
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

I have been contemplating a thread to discuss this for some time. However, for now, I will just say that the his gospel resembles a pop-psychology Jesus through a mass marketing campaign.

Instead of presenting the gospel of Jesus for men to accept, he has created a Jesus that is acceptable to men.

Once you use an abundance of techniques to make Jesus acceptable to people, then you have to maintain that facade, less the people look somewhere else.

Have you read his books and watched his tapes? Does he deny the Lordship of Christ? Does he teach easy-believism? Does he deny the Deity of Christ and His resurrection?

He primarily targets those who already are believers and challenges us to love God and others with our whole hearts, evangelize, and become more like Jesus in character. How is this making Jesus acceptable to the people?

You once tried to make us think you knew what you were talking about on a basic Greek point of grammar. You were exposed as someone who did not know what they claimed. I call your bluff again, and suggest you are not familiar enough with 40 Days of Purpose to know if God is using it or if it is a plague on His church.
I am not that familiar either, but what I have seen seems standard stuff. That does not mean I agree with every idea, but that does not make the whole thing 'false teaching'. I will be the first to side against Warren if it can be shown he has false teaching and a mere marketing scheme (I do have concerns about the money machine the program has become). The burden of proof is on you since you are out of step with credible people and churches who endorse his program and see changed lives, salvation, and fruit that remains.

Specific quotes in extended contexts or retract your false accusations....:help:
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by granite1010

Does Sozo even go to a church or is he a home churcher?

He should answer this. It is likely he is a lone ranger. He probably could not find a church that would condone all of his ideas and attitudes. He would end up clashing with leadership and contending that everyone else is wrong except himself.

Being an island separated from the Body leads to error and deception.
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

What was the context of Galatians 1? Am I a Judaizer? Please share my posts that would place me in the category of those who have another gospel preached by an angel.

The Judaizers were not angels from heaven. :rolleyes:

Paul is making a point that the gospel he preaches is the only gospel, and that no matter who brings "another" gospel, they should be accursed. You have repeatedly affirmed that there are several different gospel messages within the pale of orthodoxy. Paul says otherwise.

Anyone who teaches progressive sanctification in the pursuit of perfection through a cooperative effort with God, is preaching "another" gospel.... YOU have done so time and again.

Anyone who teaches that Christians can be in and out of the spirit, in and out of the light, and in and out of fellowship with God through the ability to maintain righteousness in their behavior, preaches "another" gospel.... YOU have done so time and again.
 
Last edited:

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Lawless

Quote: Godrulz


You misinterpret the intent of the passages on the law. We are under grace, but this does not mean that the universal moral code is meaningless and lawlessness rules. We are not under the law, but if we rebel and disobey volitionally, the law will condemn us and drive us back to surrender and grace.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How can the Law condemn what the precious Blood of Jesus paid for?

"do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

If we step out from the grace of Christ and murder someone, commit adultery, renounce God, etc. then we are no longer under the provision of the blood. We end up condemned by the Law again (cf. apostates in Hebrews who renounced their faith and returned to Judaism and its sacrifices, ceremonial laws, etc.). Righteousness did not come through the law. We are in the covenant of grace. However, if we return to a godless life, the blood does not continue to 'pay' for our heinous sins that we now commit as someone who rejects the grace of God. If we return with repentant faith, renounce our rebellion, and follow Christ again, we will be forgiven. If we persist in apostasy until death, we will be judged by the Law, not covered by the blood.

If a genuine believer sins, this does not put them totally back under the law. It does not make the sin a non-sin, it does not forfeit salvation, it is to be repented of with renewed obedience (I John).
(This assumes that OSAS is specious).
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

He should answer this. It is likely he is a lone ranger. He probably could not find a church that would condone all of his ideas and attitudes. He would end up clashing with leadership and contending that everyone else is wrong except himself.

Being an island separated from the Body leads to error and deception.

Like Aimiel, when challenged on your heritical doctrines and "personal experience" theology, you revert to trying to discredit me as qualified to teach and share the truth.

If you can prove that any of my presentation of the gospel is in any way contrary to that which was presented by Paul to the church, then I will recant. You have yet to do so.

In regards to my rejection of a greek word that still is not listed in the five highly accepted resources that I use to supplement my studies, it in no way negates what I teach in regard to the message of Christ, and is simply your childish attempt to discredit me. There is still no evidence that the word is all (men), even though the word pantas does appear to be in the NT in other texts (even though that word is absent in the sources I mentioned).

I have mentioned the church I attend many times on TOL. It is a Bible Baptist Church .
 
Last edited:

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

If we step out from the grace of Christ and murder someone, commit adultery, renounce God, etc. then we are no longer under the provision of the blood. We end up condemned by the Law again (cf. apostates in Hebrews who renounced their faith and returned to Judaism and its sacrifices, ceremonial laws, etc.).
You want proof that you preach another gospel? Well, there it is!
However, if we return to a godless life, the blood does not continue to 'pay' for our heinous sins that we now commit as someone who rejects the grace of God.
Do you seriously not see how incredibly self-righteous those comments are? YOU must be blind!!

Please tell us, godrulz, how you qualified yourself today, based on the Law, not to be found guilty of sin?
If we return with repentant faith, renounce our rebellion, and follow Christ again, we will be forgiven.
YOU are a blasphemer! You are anti-Christ, and pro-flesh righteousness! How can you not see that? It can only be because you do not have the Spirit of God. May you be accursed!
If we persist in apostasy until death, we will be judged by the Law, not covered by the blood.
In other words, the blood of Jesus is only as good as you are!

If anyone else agrees with that egregious statement from godrulz, please speak up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top