Hi Ho Silverstein | Scary Goldings ft. MonoNeon

John Piper ~ Prosperity Gospel

Watch this share it with others think about what it means. Jesus said "Take care and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." Luke 12:15 "For where your treasure is there will your heart be also" Luke 12:34

The Racket of Unforgetful gods

Guest post by Jared Wilson
Janet Reitman has written a provocative book detailing the inner workings of the very secretive world of Scientology. Having read up a bit on L. Ron Hubbard’s science fiction-slash-religion creation before, I was familiar with the charge that in the early “auditing” process, budding Scientologists reveal their deepest darkest secrets to the church, who in turn may eventually use those to emotionally blackmail would-be deserters and dissenters. In an interview reprinted by Reuters, Reitman elaborates:

Q: There are all these rumors that celebrities like Cruise remain Scientologists because the church knows all their secrets and they fear blackmail. Any truth to that?

A: I didn’t go into that too much in my book, but it seems obvious. They have the goods on everybody. A great part of the Scientology experience is the confession that happens in the auditing experience. You are constantly being asked to write up your transgressions, maybe even your unspoken transgressions. They know everything about you. They would know everything about Cruise in the same way that they would know everything about me if I were a member.

What a racket.
And what a wonder, then, that Christians are forgiven and saved by a God whose filing cabinet of records against us is empty. Or, rather, is filled with the obedience of Jesus.
I, I am he
who blots out your transgressions for my own sake,
and I will not remember your sins. (Isaiah 43:25)
Justin Taylor

Gnosticism in the Camp(ing)

Tom Gilson

Arguably the second oldest and most persistent Christian heresy is gnosticism (the first is legalism). Early forms of it were condemned in Colossians and possibly other Pauline letters, and also in 1 John. Gnosticism splits the “spiritual” world from the visible material world, saying that what really counts is not what we can see, but only what happens in the invisible realms. It seriously undermines God’s work in creation and especially in the Incarnation and Resurrection. It violates clear biblical teaching about the end times, the future state we call “heaven.”
Gnosticism is not Christianity.
Harold Camping says Judgment Day actually did happen last Saturday—in a “spiritual” sense. Can his teachings still be called Christian? Some of them, yes. But his most public ones are infected with deadly error.
I don’t want to draw the Gnostic connection more closely than it deserves, but it comes to mind that Gnosticism tends to promote spiritual pride, and vice-versa. One wonders if some humility might have helped Camping admit he made a mistake.
First Things

World Ends Tomorrow - A Punk Named Harold Camping

As you may have heard, a punk named Harold Camping is shooting his big mouth off about how the Bible supposedly guarantees that judgment day will be May 21. Right about the time we're going to be watching a play starring Jack Bauer, Jim Gaffigan, and one of the original cops from Law & Order, Jesus is guaranteed to return, because it's some certain time after the flood, and based on some numerology and awful theology, Camping has cracked the Bible code. And between the omnipresent billboards and the interviews with every media type willing to slander the church (by claiming he's part of us and speaks for us), his message is getting out. May 21 is judgment day.

So what is the Christian response to this?

First, understand that Harold Camping is a vile blasphemer. Jesus could not have been more clear that we cannot, will not, and have no business trying to figure out the date. Whenever he was asked about this, his response was always direct and unambiguous - it's none of our business, and we cannot know. Harold Camping claims that not only does he know, it is the duty of every Christian to know. In other words, he's calling Jesus Christ a liar. This is utter blasphemy. (For more on Camping's devolution, see this excellent five-part series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Second, we can't say for sure that May 21 is not the day (at least the day that everything starts, or the day of the rapture, or whatever your eschatology holds) any more than this guy can say that it is. Look - I understand the temptation to say that if some crackpot is predicting Christ's return on a certain date, we can be sure it won't be that date. But that simply doesn't follow. We won't know either way - we can never predict when it will be, nor can we say with certainty that it won't.

While we don't want to endorse Camping's sinful bluster in any way, we also don't want to go too far the other way, and pretend that Christ's return is not imminent. In denouncing Camping, it's far too easy to sound like the mockers and scoffers of 2 Peter 3. Jesus may not come back on May 21 - it may be May 17, or May 22, or some other day. We don't know - and it is a tragedy when our lack of knowledge here causes us to give comfort to the lost, or get complacent and act like it couldn't happen any moment. Jesus very explicitly warned against this, and Peter was clear about how we should live in light of Christ's imminent return.

Jesus could come back at any time - be ready! Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation!
One Man peanut Gallery

Judgment Day: May 21, 2011?

 

Albert Mohler has some good background on Harold Camping’s latest claims (part of a larger pattern of false teaching), and closes his article with some helpful reminders:

First, Christ specifically admonished his disciples not to claim such knowledge. In Acts 1:7, Jesus said, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.” In Matthew 24:36, Christ taught similarly: “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
To state the case plainly, these two verses explicitly forbid Christians to claim the knowledge of such dates and times. Jesus clearly taught that the Father has not revealed such dates and timing, but has reserved that knowledge for himself. It is an act of incredible presumptuousness to claim that a human knows such a date, or has determined God’s timing by any means.
Second, the Bible does not contain hidden codes that we are to find and decipher. The Bible has been given to us in order that we might know the truth, and the truth is clearly revealed in its pages. We are not to look for hidden patterns of words, numbers, dates, or anything else. The Bible’s message is plain and requires no mathematical computation for its understanding. The claim that one has found a hidden code or system in the Bible is an insult to the Bible as the Word of God.
Third, Christians are indeed to be looking for Christ to return and seeking to be found faithful when Christ comes. We are not to draw a line in history and set a date, but we are to be about the Father’s business, sharing the Gospel and living faithful Christian lives. We are not to sit on rooftops like the Millerites, waiting for Christ’s return. We are to be busy doing what Christ has commanded us to do.
In Hebrews 9:28, we are taught that Christ will come a second time “to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” That is the faithful Christian response to the New Testament teachings about Christ’s coming. The church is not to be arrogantly setting dates, but instead to be eagerly waiting for him. Of that we can be truly certain.

Justin Taylor

Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a Wolf to Avoid?

If Christopher Hitchens or Deepak Chopra penned a book that scoffed at the biblical teaching on hell, we would not be surprised. So why would anyone be shocked or confused when Rob Bell writes Love Wins? Has Bell shown any more commitment to gospel truth, or any more devotion to the principle of biblical authority than Hitchens or Chopra?

Is Rob Bell truly a Christian, or is he one of those dangerous deceivers Scripture warns us about repeatedly (Acts 20:29; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Colossians 2:8; 2 Peter 2:1; etc.)?
It's a fair—and necessary—question. Christ’s famous warning about wolves in sheep’s clothing is given to us as an imperative: “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-16). Our Lord clearly expects His true disciples to be able to spot spiritual imposters and wolves in sheep’s clothing—especially those who are purveyors of deadly false doctrines.
Rob Bell certainly fits that category. He relentlessly casts doubt on the authority and reliability of Scripture. He denies the Bible’s perspicuity, disavows its hard truths, and ridicules some of the most important features of the gospel.

Granted, Bell (who was raised in the evangelical movement and is an alumnus of Wheaton College) still insists on calling himself “evangelical.” He reiterated that claim recently in a March 14 interview with Lisa Miller, where he stated, “Do I think that I’m evangelical and orthodox to the bone? Yes.”
A careful examination of Bell’s teaching suggests, however, that his profession of faith is not credible. His claim that he is “evangelical and orthodox to the bone” is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Bell’s teaching gives no evidence of any real evangelical conviction. If “each tree is known by its own fruit” (Luke 6:44), we cannot blithely embrace Rob Bell as a “brother” just because he says he wants to be accepted as an evangelical.
If, as Jesus said, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27), then we ought to look with the utmost suspicion on anyone who doubts and denies as much of Jesus’ teaching as Rob Bell does, and yet claims to be a follower of Christ.
Scripture is crystal-clear about this: “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Timothy 6:3-4).
Historic evangelicalism has always affirmed the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, while declaring (as Jesus and the apostles did) that the only way of salvation for fallen humanity is through the atoning work of Christ, and the only instrument of justification is faith in Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the gospel.
Rob Bell believes none of those things. His skepticism about so many key biblical truths, his penchant for sowing doubt in his hearers, and his obvious contempt for the principles of divine justice as taught in Scripture all give evidence that he is precisely the kind of unbelieving false teacher Scripture warns us about.
Bell is an inveterate syncretist who loves to blend “progressive” and politically correct dogmas with eastern mysticism, humanistic jargon, and Christian terminology. His teaching is full of barren ideas borrowed directly from old liberalism, sometimes rephrased in postmodern jargon but still reeking of stale Socinianism.
What Bell is peddling is nothing like New Testament Christianity. It is a man-centered religion totally devoid of both clarity and biblical authority.
Given those facts, you might think any true evangelical would reject Bell and his teaching outright. But evidently many in the American evangelical movement think they are obliged simply to accept at face value Bell’s claim of orthodoxy. No less than Mart DeHaan, voice of Radio Bible Class, decried Bell’s critics, portraying them as the divisive ones for pointing out the unsoundness of Bell’s teaching. DeHaan wrote,

I’m left wondering… are we allowing love (and truth) to win now… by using threats of group pressure and blackballing of brothers like Rob, and those who openly or secretly stand with him? Is that really the best way to maintain a strong and healthy orthodoxy? [emphasis added]

The biblical answer to DeHaan’s question is clear and fairly simple: The best way to maintain a strong and healthy orthodoxy is to “[hold] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching . . . to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers . . . who must be silenced” (Titus 1:9-11).
We have a duty not only to expose, refute, and silence Rob Bell’s errors, but also to urge people under his influence to run as fast and as far as they can from him, lest they be gathered into the eternal hell he denies. It won’t do to sit by idly while someone who denies the danger of hell mass-produces sons of hell (cf. Matthew 23:15).
In a series of posts this week, we will demonstrate from Rob Bell’s own published works that he has long been hostile to virtually every vital gospel truth; we will consider some of the questions he has raised about what the Bible has to say about hell; and we will compare and contrast what Bell is saying about hell with what Jesus said about it.
Buckle in and get ready to be challenged. These are admittedly some of the hardest truths in the New Testament, but there’s no reason anyone holding authentic evangelical convictions should find the subject confusing or controversial.

John MacArthur
Pastor-Teacher
Grace To You

MSNBC Host Makes Rob Bell Squirm: "You're Amending The Gospel So That It's Palatable!"

Martin Bashir is a reporter impatient with evasive answers. He even quotes from Kevin DeYoung’s review and asks Rob Bell to respond. Bashir gives his own take on Bell’s book: “You’re creating a Christian message that’s warm, kind, and popular for contemporary culture. . . . What you’ve done is you’re amending the gospel, the Christian message, so that it’s palatable to contemporary people who find, for example, the idea of hell and heaven very difficult to stomach. So here comes Rob Bell, he’s made a Christian gospel for you, and it’s perfectly palatable, it’s much easier to swallow. That’s what you’ve done, haven’t you?”

Richard Mouw on “Love Wins”

From Cathy Lynn Grossman at USA Today:

Richard Mouw, president of the world’s largest Protestant seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary based in Pasadena, Calif., calls Love Wins “a great book, well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and passionate about Jesus.

The real hellacious fight, says Mouw, a friend of Bell, a Fuller graduate, is between “generous orthodoxy and stingy orthodoxy. There are stingy people who just want to consign many others to hell and only a few to heaven and take delight in the idea. But Rob Bell allows for a lot of mystery in how Jesus reaches people.”

I think this quote from Mouw portends the shape of the coming debate. Bell’s book begs the question of whether or not universalism is within the bounds of orthodoxy. Mouw says yes, and I’m sure a number of others will join him.
Watch closely those who rally to Bell going forward. There is a real dividing line here, and I don’t think that is all bad (1 Corinthians 11:19). For evangelicals, there can hardly be a more serious question. I hope and pray that very few will follow Bell to the wrong side on this one.
Denny Burk

Taylor, Bell, and Bull

Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 12:34 AM

Adam Omelianchuk

If you haven’t already heard, Rob Bell is being judged. Or so say his defenders in the wake of a post by Justin Taylor that concluded that Bell “is moving farther and farther away from anything resembling biblical Christianity.” Perhaps there is something to question in saying something like this before reading the book. However, are both Taylor and John Piper really being patently unreasonable in coming to this conclusion? I mean here’s how the defense goes: Bell is just being provocative. He’s asking these questions to get people to really think about what they believe and why they believe it. Look at his endorsements. He couldn’t be advocating universalism. Asking questions doesn’t make one a heretic. This is just a marketing ploy, and it worked brilliantly. That’s why Bell is a great communicator. Reformed people don’t get it.
Okay. Here’s the deal.
If Bell’s book is not an argument for universalism, and that Bell’s rhetorical questions are not meant to ridicule the traditional beliefs of eternal conscious suffering, penal substitutionary atonement, and salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, then the marketing mechanism is a paradigm example of what Harry Frankfurt has defined as “bull****.” This is a good reason not to think Bell is a good communicator. This strategy of communication is pretentious, deliberately vague, and falls just short of lying. The “he’s being provocative” defense doesn’t help much in that provocation is not necessarily a virtue. It becomes vicious when you misrepresent yourself, acting like a phony heretic, just so you can make a point and sell some books. Being forthcoming, clear, and presenting a persuasive argument, while considering contrary views in their best possible form, is always intellectually virtuous. Why not go that route? Because it doesn’t sell? Sounds like a good reason not to read the the book!
To be clear, I am not saying this because I am a Young, Restless, Reformed fanboy. The good Lord knows that I have been critical of things Piper and Taylor have said for years (after all, I am an Arminian egalitarian!). I think its fair to point out the wisdom of judging an author after reading their book, but to be surprised at their response to Bell’s promotional material, I think, shows a staggering lack of empathy for how they might hear what Bell is saying. I take their clear, serious-minded positions  over the equivocation and obfuscation of a marketing ploy any day.

Two Thoughts on the Rob Bell Brouhaha

Well, my ruminations got the best of me. I think there is something more to say about the Rob Bell brouhaha. Yes, even before the book comes out.
Actually two somethings. Consider this an effort to clear the underbrush so we might see the forest and trees.
Good Verse, Wrong Time
One, it needs to be stated again that this is not a Matthew 18 issue. No one is obligated to respond in private to a promotional video that has been put out in public. Jesus said, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone” (Matt. 18:15). Rob Bell has not sinned against Justin Taylor or John Piper. This is not a personal offense or an interpersonal squabble that should have been left in private. The general rule of thumb, supported by Matthew 18 and sanctified common sense, is we should not make a matter more public than it has to be. But by definition, YouTube videos and Vimeo clips and books and blogs are meant to be public. That’s the whole point. The Love Wins trailer was not a private email correspondence intercepted by the Reformed Gestapo. It was deliberately made public and can be commented on in public.
Look at how the apostles handled false teaching in the New Testament. There’s nothing to suggest Paul sat down to talk with Demas (2 Tim. 4:20), Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8), Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 3:17), or Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20). And even when Paul opposed Peter “to his face” he made a point to do it “before them all” (Gal. 2:11, 14). No one is required to talk to me before they criticize my books, and no one was required to call up Rob Bell before commenting on his Love Wins video.
Not Might, But Did
Two, the bigger complaint is that Justin Taylor or I or any number of bloggers and tweeters have completely jumped the gun in criticizing Bell for a yet to be released book. This would be a fair critique had we attempted to write a book review for a book we hadn’t read. But our deep dismay and the reason for issuing an urgent warning is not based on what he might say in the book. It’s based on what he did say in the video.
Here’s what Bell says after the story about Ghandi and the piece of art:

Will only a few select people make it to heaven? And will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell? And if that’s the case, how do you become one of the few? Is it what you believe or what you say or what you do or who you know or something that happens in your heart? Or do you need to be initiated or take a class or converted or being born again? How does one become one of these few?
Then there is the question behind the questions. The real question [is], “What is God like?”, because millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message, the center of the gospel of Jesus, is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. And so what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But would kind of God is that, that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news?
This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith. They see it as an endless list of absurdities and inconsistencies and they say, why would I ever want to be a part of that? See what we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about who God is and what God is like. What you discover in the Bible is so surprising, unexpected, beautiful, that whatever we have been told and been taught, the good news is actually better than that, better than we could ever imagine.
The good news is that love wins.

This is not back cover copy from the publisher. This is not a promo blurb written by an intern at HarperCollins. This not what Brian McLaren gave for an endorsement. This is what Rob Bell said.
And he is saying something. Don’t think for a second the questions don’t communicate something. These are not “let’s explore together and see what the Bible says about these hard issues” kind of questions. Everyone agrees Bell is a remarkable communicator. He is not unaware of the effect of these three minutes. Words mean something and words do something. Whether the sentences end in question marks or not, the force of these sentences is to undermine—nay, to ridicule—the reality of eternal conscious punishment, the wrath of the God, and penal substitutionary atonement.
Imagine I do a video like this:

Will God save everyone? Does everyone go to heaven no matter how bad they were and no matter what they believed? Is Hitler there next to Bonhoeffer enjoying the same eternal bliss? What kind of God would that be? How would we make sense of Jesus’ strong language about hell or the chilling scenes in Revelation? Would that God still be holy and just?
And what would that do to our understanding of the gospel? Would Jesus’ death still be necessary? Would faith in him really be that important? Why would we still send out missionaries and evangelists? What would be so good about the good news if, in the end, there is no bad news? And if there is no hell, or we can’t really be sure anyone is there, why have almost all Christians in all of history believed there was such a place of eternal suffering? Have we found something that historic orthodoxy has missed all these centuries?
What if the things you’ve heard recently are not the truth about Christianity? What if the warnings in Scripture are real warnings? What if God is purer than we thought, we’re worse than we imagined, and hell is as real as the nose on your face? What if the “only way” means the only way? What if God is glorified in salvation and judgment? What if the God of love and the Father of mercies is also a righteous Judge, a holy Sovereign, and a conquering King?

Nothing but questions. Not a single indicative proposition. Yet who could think for a moment that I am not teaching something? This is not mere provocation. It is not an expression of searching inquiry or humble wrestling. My questions pack a rhetorical punch. They tell you what I think is foolish and what is wise. They suggest that some beliefs are noble and others are not. They tell you what God is like and what you should believe about him. My questions teach. And only a teacher with stunning naivete or remarkable cowardice would suggest they didn’t.
Please note, that last sentence is not about Bell. He has not stepped back from the questions saying they were only questions (maybe he does in the book, I don’t know). But some folks claim that the video cannot be critiqued because he’s only asking questions. Maybe he’s just trying to sell books? Maybe he’s just messing with us and in the book he will sound much more orthodox?
As to the former question, it doesn’t matter if it’s meant to be promotional, devotional, or confrontational, the fact is he’s teaching. And false teaching of this depth and breadth needs to be addressed. This is not a conflict of personalities or an intramural turf war. This is about the gospel–what it means, what it accomplished, and what’s at stake if we do not believe its good news.
I know many young evangelicals barely have any stomach for controversy, let alone strong words about a serious topic. But if there is no way to be simultaneously bold and humble; if there is no way to be a gentle, caring person while still speaking in clear tones about hurtful error; if there is no way to correct those who oppose sound doctrine without being a moral monster; if there’s no way to love truth and grace at the same time, then there’s no way to be a biblical Christian. Judgmentalism is a sin and Calvinists can be jerks. But not every judgment is sinful and not every truth is cruel just because Reformed people teach it.
And as to the latter question, if Bell ends up espousing a traditional view of hell, the wrath of God, and penal substitution, that would mean McLaren’s blurb was misleading, the publisher’s description was misleading, and Bell’s video was misleading. Love Wins can be the second coming of Jonathan Edwards and it still doesn’t change that what was communicated in the video was untrue to the Scriptures, inconsistent with historic orthodoxy, belittling of the cross, deceiving to unbelievers, and a tragic distortion of God’s character.
Chasing After the Wind, But Maybe Not
I realize this post will not make universalists, inclusivists, and non-Christians change their minds. But perhaps there are some Rob Bell fans who have enjoyed the Noomas and learned from the books and you aren’t quite sure what the fuss is all about. Why is everyone ragging on your favorite preacher? My exhortation is to watch the video again. Read through the words and see if they line up with the hymns you sing. See if the questions sound right next to Isaiah 53, John 3, and Revelation 20-22. Look into Ghandi’s Hinduism and see if that seems compatible with Christianity. Explore the giants of church history (e.g., Augustine, Luther, Calvin) and see what mainstream Christians have believed through the centuries. Read through some of the confessions or catechisms you may have grown up. Above all, search the Scriptures and see what God says. You may just conclude your old Sunday school teachers knew a thing or two.
Rob Bell is right about one thing: what you believe about heaven and hell says a lot about what you believe about God. That’s why theological error of this magnitude cannot go unchecked. The God of the Vimeo clip is not a God of wrath, not a God of eternal recompense, not a God who showed us love in sending his Son to be a propitiation for our wretched sins, not a God whose will it was to crush the Suffering Servant in an exercise of divine justice and free grace. Indeed, says Bell—even if he says it with a question—such a God could not be good.
We don’t have to guess if Bell will say something dreadfully, horribly, disgracefully wrong.
He already has.
Kevin DeYoung

All Along the Watchtower - Larry McCray

from The CD Tangled Up In Blues - The Songs Of Bob Dylan. Bob wrote the song Jimi Hendrix made it famous and also made the best version. this is an iteresting version I like the violins moving the song along.



Buy this Cd from Amazon for only $4.88 well worth it. Tangled Up In Blues: Songs Of Bob Dylan - This Ain't No Tribute

The Troubling View of Joel Osteen

Joel Osteen appeared on The View on Tuesday morning to promote his new book, The Christmas Spirit. It was during the interview that he spoke more about his relativism than the gospel.  When asked about homosexuality, he responded with a very non-offensive answer in an attempt to please The View and those who watch the program.  Joel Osteen may be called a pastor, a Christian, and a man of God by some people, but if he truly believes what he said in his interview on Nov. 16th, 2010, he believes a different gospel than the one found in the pages of Holy Scripture.  Although his position on homosexuality may be offensive to the evangelical church, we should be more worried about his relativism that fuels his position on homosexuality!
At one point during the interview, Barbara Walters referred back to a previous appearance of Osteen on their program.  She wanted to dig deeper into Osteen’s position regarding homosexuality.  According to Walters, Osteen had stated in his previous appearance that homosexuality was not “God’s best for people.”  She wanted more clarification, so she said, “Recently a pastor of an evangelical church in Georgia named Jim Swilley came out and said that he was gay.  He is married, he has children, but he is gay. What’s your feelings about that?“  Osteen responded by saying, “Well, first off Barbara, I should finish that sentence.  I should make it clear.  I don’t think it’s God’s best for your life.  I don’t NOT think it’s God’s best making us.  As far as that pastor is concerned, I don’t know that individual situation.  I think that, I believe the Scriptures teach us that a pastor in leadership like that is not going to stay in a Christian church like ours.“  That led Barbara Walters to ask a very specific follow-up question.  She asked, “Should he get out of the Christian church if he is gay?“  Osteen responded by saying, “You know, I think that’s totally up to him.”
Later in the interview, it was pointed out that Joel Osteen gave the prayer for the newly elected lesbian Mayor of Houston.  When given opportunities to refute the theory that homosexuals are created by God as homosexuals and that God somehow desires that they live that lifestyle – Osteen spent his time agreeing with them rather than refuting their false theories.  Whoopi, Joy, Barbara, and the other co-hosts seem to embrace a type of moralistic relativism.  They seem to believe that all people have a built-in ability to approach God on their own terms, on their own path, and receive the love of God.  Rather than being a true prophet of God – Osteen spent his time agreeing with false doctrines that will send millions of people to Hell.
Whoopi Goldberg actually brought up the core answer to the entire conversation when she asked Osteen a question near the end of the program.  She asked, “Don’t you believe that God in His infinite wisdom created us all as individuals and gave us enough intelligence to go to Him for those answers that we sometimes look to people on earth for?“  Although she continued by making other troubling statements, this question is really the heart of the issue.  The Bible teaches us that man doesn’t have this ability to approach God on his own terms.  Romans 3 provides us clear evidence that fallen man is a rebel by nature and does not seek after God!  In fact, it’s really clear that sinful man is unable to go to God unless God draws that individual to Himself (John 6:44).  Therefore, due to the radical depravity of the human heart – man chooses alternative lifestyles that contradict God’s intention for humanity.  These lifestyles include homosexuality, divorce, and child molestation.  Just because a person rapes a child doesn’t mean that God created them that way and that His intentions are for adults to have such relationships with children.  Clearly – that is a violation of God’s plan.  It’s clearly a sin against God.  Likewise, homosexuality does the same thing.  Joel Osteen should have quoted Scripture and defended the faith once delivered to the saints.
At the end of the day, we must view Osteen as something other than a pastor.  A Christian pastor is one who believes that the gospel is a narrow path – not a wide relative path that each person defines on their own terms.  A pastor must be able to defend the faith against those who are spreading false doctrines (Titus 1:9).  Clearly, Osteen was not able to do that when surrounded by women who pervert the gospel of Christ.  Osteen may be an author and a speaker, but he isn’t a Christian pastor.  People should avoid Joel Osteen’s teachings, books, and his church due to his relativism that denies the true gospel of Jesus Christ.  True pastors are unable to make everyone happy.  True prophets say, “Thus saith the LORD.”  Osteen will say whatever makes people feel good – no matter if it leads them down a broad relative pathway to eternal destruction (Matthew 7:13).  Rather than submitting to their view – Osteen should have pointed to the the view of God found in Holy Scripture.
Proverbs 14:12 – There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death (ESV).
DBG