« Jesus' Tomb | Main | What Is the Unborn »

September 05, 2008

Comments

Well, there's an Ashley Brown in there that frequents the speaker list, so I think it's safe to say that their church believes in women preachers.

Ashley Brown seems to be a MAN!
Sermons are not unlike what we would hear in any Baptist church.

uhm..."Ashely Brown" is a dude.

How about Palin herself ... here

http://rianniello.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-at-church.html

LOL!

That's not a woman - that's a MAN, baby. Yeah!

I had to do that, Pastor Ashley. :D

Is this Kroon"s equivalent to Wright's "God D@#! America":

"It’s so very possible that God, instead of responding by granting spiritual renewal and sustained prosperity, He could just as easily...it’s conceivable that He could just as easily, for example, raise up a revived, prosperous and powerful Communist Russia with a web of alliances across the Middle East. And our gas pumps would go dry. The dollar would collapse. And the markets would crash. ... And it could happen in a matter of weeks. That could happen. It could happen by this fall."

(from 7-13 sermon)

anair, you're grasping now. There is a big difference between saying that "God could..." and "God should..."!

Pentecostalism is highly questionable, Dispensationalism is highly questionable,Women Pastors, Teachers, and dominance over the male are all highly questionable, Feminism both conservative and liberal is highly questionable, Patriotism (love of the world i.e. Greek Kosmos) is highly questionable, Thinking the Church is not Israel is highly questionable. The list goes on and on. We have a very interesting discussion here. Thank you!

Mike, I don't think they are equivalent either. I was just comparing them. Wright's is clearly unbiblical and antiamerican whereas Kroon's is biblical and realistic.

Re: Kroon's is biblical and realistic.

In what way?

Ashley is not a woman. Women pastors are not at all questionable. They are anti-scriptural. Period. Seriously, on a site such as this, someone would raise an issue with a church having a woman pastor without bothering to do even two minutes of research to verify their complaint? Sheesh. It took me two clicks.
Anyway, I am listening to some of their stuff. I don't see in their committments a desire to be evangelists, which is a problem for me. Other than that though, what I am hearing and reading seems largely both reputable, and doctrinally accurate. Definitely no J. Wright heresy here!

Pro Life,
Just exactly what do you believe
anyway? All I hear is a 'clanging
cymbal.' You, without a doubt, are the most misserable
'Christian' I have ever heard. I doubt that the word 'Grace' is even in your vocabulary, let alone
your heart.

Go to Wasilla Bible Church's Home page, click on 'About Us', and scroll down to, 'Authenticity in
our Spiritual Life.' Very interesting.
My take on the whole thing is this.
God has raised up a Ruth, an Ester and a Deborah.
A Ruth because of her dedication to her family.
An Ester because of her love for her 'people.' Alaskans and Americans.
A Deborah because the Republicans won't support a man who will lead
by his Christian principals.
America now has a clear choice. We have real life Christians, facing real life problems, applying Biblical solutions.
The left has staked out its turf;
unborn children as 'a punishment.'
Palin's example on the other hand, both in her choice and her daughter's choice, shows the sanctity of life. This is a classic case of Romans 8:28 in action, and it's right out in public view. The left wing media is going to go crazy trying to deal with this. The rumor that Sraha's baby was actually her daughter's just tipped their hand.
The problem is that they don't know how to handle the truth. The entire liberal worldview is so phony, that any exposure to the light will show it for what it is.
However, John 1 says that 'man loved the darkness rather than the light, because our deeds are evil.' America has a choice to make, I suspect that God is making
that choice as simple and clear as possible. Just because He shines the light of truth on something, doesn't mean we will choose the light. Read Ezekiel 14:13 about 'a land tresspassing grievously against Him.' Continuing the complaint in chapter 16:20-21, God names child sacrifice and asks, 'is it a small matter?' I still maintain that there is far more going on here than mere political brinksmanship, what ever McCain's motives actually are. God is the one who 'turns the hearts of rulers.'

anair
sorry for the negative assumption. I agree.

RE: Tim

Here Kroon says he was a Christian his entire life. I hope he doesn't mean that he thinks he was born a Christian.

"It was about 34 years ago…I had finished college and I was really bothered by a simple thing in my life. I had been a Christian my entire life and I had never read the Bible through. And I made one very simple commitment…I said over the next year I’m gonna commit to reading the Bible, so when I speak of being a Christian I speak knowing what’s here. That commitment led to where I am today."

From: The Power of the Gospel Pastor Larry Kroon

Here he presents a typical Dispensational understanding of the origin of the Church. Dispensationalism is fatalistic and could lead to WWIII if people in close proximity to the nuke button believe it.

"Christianity, the Church, started in the city of Jerusalem. That’s where the Church was ‘born’, as it were. It was a Jewish city. It was the center of Jewish life, and the Church started within Judaism in Jerusalem."

From: What is a Christian: Pastor Larry Kroon


Just click my name below and that will take you to my blog comments about this matter. Here's the text without links:

In this case, an Atlantic.com writer seems to think (from the quote he publishes and the link to which it is sourced) that it is somehow controversial for Christians, including Gov. Palin, to be members of a church that believe that their theology is true, that it teaches a last judgment and that one ought to rely on Christ and his grace, both in word and in deed, in order to avoid such a fate. Apparently, the Atlantic writer also thinks that there is something prima facie outrageous when a church’s pastor speaks from the pulpit of a last judgment of the entire world that includes residents of all the Earth’s geographical regions including Wasilla, Alaska and the United States of America.

This, by the way, is called Christianity, and it is well-documented as an essential doctrine in the catechism of the Church of which the Atlantic writer aligns himself. It’s also in the Nicene Creed: “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” Surely, the Catholic Atlantic writer believes the Nicene Creed? Even Presbyterians believe it, for God’s sake!

I can only conclude that the Atlantic writer seems to think that if you are an orthodox Christian, and have the temerity to believe that the Nicene Creed is actually true, you are unfit for elected office. He is certainly free to suggest that certain Christians remain permanently sequestered from public life until they recant to the Atlantic writer’s satisfaction. But one wonders if the Obama campaign wants this writer–who coined the slur “Christianist” for those with whom he disagrees theologically–to be known as the senator’s chief literary apologist for his presidency, which the writer in fact had become by virtue of his well-written Gospel to the Americans, “Why Obama Matters,” published in the December 2007 issue of the Atlantic.

Strangely enough, the Obama campaign seems to be more than happy to publicly accept the Atlantic writer’s support. His work (a March 18, 2008 blog entry) is published by Senator Obama’s campaign on its site. The piece praises an Obama speech that the Atlantic writer believes shows the senator’s authentic Christian faith. The essay has been up on barackobama.com for nearly six months, and still remains there over a week since that same writer began his irresponsible rumor-mongering about Gov. Palin. Even though Senator Obama wisely and strongly condemned the rumor-mongering his campaign seems to promote the rumor-mongerer’s judgment on the authenticity of Senator Obama’s Christian faith in the “in the news” section of its website. I just don’t get it.

Check This Out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_1Eit0pxM

Dr. Beckwith,

You wrote: "Even Presbyterians believe it, for God’s sake!"

Actually, we Presbyterians believe very little for God's sake. : )

>> Seriously, on a site such as this, someone would raise an issue with a church having a woman pastor without bothering to do even two minutes of research to verify their complaint? Sheesh. It took me two clicks.

Whoa, whoah, whoah, there ...

"Ashley" is a girl's name. I was well justified in writing them off as believing that women could be Pastors.

Anyway, I sense some Johnny Cash comin' on. O.o

I was watching Biden on Meet The Press this morning and the abortion question came up. He said that he opposes it on religious grounds but can't impose his religious beliefs on others in a pluralist society. He said what makes it different from Fascism is that when life begins is a religious question and matter between the individual and "their" god.

I love STR and would love to hear you you guys would have an Ambassador respond to these comments. Thanks for any input.

Wright VS Wasilla.

Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world (America is not a Christian Nation even though it might have a nominal Christian bias). Jesus also declined the devil, when offered all the kingdoms of the world. This offer must have been true or it wouldn’t have been a temptation.

Since all the kingdoms of the world are under the proximate control of the Devil...We are told:

1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. World (Greek Kosmos = an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government.)

On the other hand, Christians are the salt of the earth and we should work to bring about change, by changing the individual. Paul said he knows nothing but Christ crucified. How many opportunities to share the gospel are missed because of carnal worldly divisions? Or because of attempts to take over a worldly government system?

I believe if we are to speak out against the Democrats and abortion, we should likewise speak out against the Republicans and unjust war.

"I believe if we are to speak out against the Democrats and abortion, we should likewise speak out against the Republicans and unjust war."

The question of war is one that has been settled for quite some time in the Christian world (with the exception of the "peace" Churches). The justice or injustice of a particular war, in most cases, is outside the competence of the church. This is why, for example, the Catholic Church does not pronounce on whether a particular war is just or unjust. It provides the principles--the same principles accepted by most Protestants--that help inform our judgments on a particular war. But, as in the case of the Iraqi war, sincere and informed Christians disagree.

The issue of abortion is different, since abortion's wrongness, unlike war's wrongness, is prima facie true. Abortion is intrinsically evil. War is not. Even in cases in which abortion is said to be "justified," e.g., life of the mother, it is not per se an abortion, since the pregnancy is terminated for the sake of saving a life and not with the intent to kill a fetus. For if there was a way to save the fetus and terminate the pregnancy while saving the mother's life, we would be obligated to do it. On the other hand, directly killing enemy combatants in a war may be required by justice. And if it turns out that by doing so innocents are accidentally killed, it is the death of them that is analogous to a justified terminated pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is not desired or intended. That, as a term of art, is not an abortion.

RE: Francis

OK,What business is it of Christians to fight under one worldly (satanic)flag versus another when our citizenship is in Heaven? Is it OK for us to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in this case but not in the case of marriage? Also, isn't war always about money (James Chapter 5)

Pro Life,

Your question about Christians serving in the military of their country has been clearly dealt with both directly and by clear inference in Scripture.
Luke 3:12-14 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?" 13 "Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them. 14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely-- be content with your pay." (Jesus directly told them to take their military pay for their service, and did NOT tell them to lay down their arms, or that they were serving a Satanic system).

In Jesus' interaction with the Roman Centurion in Matt, Mark & Luke, Jesus never tells him to quit the Roman army. Centurions were experienced, blooded, disciplined, military killers, and led a century of men in combat. In fact, Jesus is impressed and highly commends the centurion for his understanding of legitimate authority and subordination.

The centurion at Jesus' crucifixion gives testimony to Jesus being the "Son of God" yet we are not told that he then threw down his spear and entered the Peace Corps.

In Acts 10, Cornelius the centurion is dealt with in the most positive way by the Holy Spirit and by the apostle Peter. He never tells Cornelius to quit his post. In fact, it is extraordinary that God chose a Roman Centurion to prove to Peter that God was officially "breaking out" into the gentile world with the gospel.

Paul in Romans 13 says to obey the governing authority, "for he does not bear the sword for nothing." I would remind you that in the Roman system the death sentence from the civil magistrate would be executed usually by the military. Paul saw this as perfectly legitimate and to be respected as from God.

And I'd just comment that the Roman system was far more despotic and less just, fair and responsive to it's citizens than ours.

You're confusing the truth of our heavenly citizenship (a wonderful truth) with a negation of our sometimes difficult earthly duties.

Also, Pro Life, your line of reasoning would find serious conflict with the historical facts surrounding the founding of the USA. It could be argued [and has been] that war is justified to protect life as an obedient act toward the commandment that says "thou shalt not kill" by protecting life against the lawless. It[war] could also be construed as obedience to the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself".

Brad B

From Francis Beckwith above: "I just don’t get it."

Yeah, I know that darn logic, always making simple things so complex.

Brad B

Could someone please explain how allowing females to be pastors is somehow detrimental to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Before you write your reply, take a deep breath...

Deeming the ordinance of women to be “anti-scriptural” is a matter of interpretation. There are good arguments on both sides, both striving to stay true to scripture. The redemptive hermeneutic approach offers a good argument in favor of women in church leadership. To try and use sound hermeneutics to justify the ordination of individuals who exhibit certain behaviors (say, adultery or homosexuality) stretches any good hermeneutic beyond its breaking point.

Now, if a church were to ordain women knowing that it was “anti-scriptural,” but did it anyway because we moderns know better, I would agree that the church has serious issues. The problem is that you don't know the motivation for a church electing to have women preach, teach, and lead, and so using that as a litmus test of a church's convictions doesn't work.

**Christians aren't misogynists**... even the ones who don't believe women should be pastors. But please, for heaven's sake, don't consider that an issue core to the saving gospel of Christ, you'll only damage it.

P.S. What do you think your women missionaries are doing in those third-world countries you've sent them to? A pastor is a pastor by any other name.

>> But please, for heaven's sake, don't consider that an issue core to the saving gospel of Christ, you'll only damage it.

I don't think anyone here thinks the roles of men and women is central to the salvific work of the Gospel.

Further, the Bible concerns itself with many such topics which are not central to the salvific work of the Gospel, yet it labors to define and compartmentalize such topics; So, just because we vehemently argue about non-salvific topics does not mean they are damaging to the Gospel, and nor does it mean that they are not worth arguing about.

>> Could someone please explain how allowing females to be pastors is somehow detrimental to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Before you write your reply, take a deep breath...

As mentioned above, when arguing about the roles of men and women, the Gospel is not an issue - at least not per se.

Rather, this topic is about identity - the idea that we were designed to function within certain parameters.

If it helps, an example of the importance of identity would be the desire for the company of the opposite sex; or, more specifically, those characteristics [read: identity] which are unique to the opposite sex.

OK, lets look at violations of just war theory instead. The Neoconservative Defense Planning Guidance calls for preemptive strike (unjust war using violence as a first resort). They also plan to secure the world's oil fields for American usage. How does this differ from the punk who goes out and sticks up a gas station and kills the clerk? Only that the numbers of deaths are far greater. Remember, Bush lied about the WMDs and used violence as a first resort. This is mass murder!

P.S. Christians shunned the military for the first several centuries based upon Christ's teachings.

Getting back to Wright vs. Wasilla,

I think the real issues concerning the religious right today are steeped in centuries of error. Dobson, Billy Graham, Palin, Bush, and anyone else you can think of all come out of religious backgrounds embracing Arminianism. Arminianism makes it possible for the self righteous to save themselves by meeting any number of conditions. They automatically loose their salvation when the stop meeting the conditions. This is salvation by works.

How many tares did Billy Graham load the church down with, by teaching that people could save themselves when they decide to keep the first commandment? Or to put in contemporary terms "accept Jesus". This is how we got Bush dragging the name of Christ through the mud, defining all Christians crooks and lairs.

Arminianism is not Christianity! These people are not Christians, though a few of God's elect might be mixed up with them.

Add Pentecostalism to the Arminian mix with their Rapture Ready Eschatology and you might have WWIII.

There are only 3 possible ways that a person can be saved:

1) we save ourselves by works(Pelagianism)

2) God along with ourselves saves us by works and Grace (Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism)

3) God alone saves us by Grace. (Augustinianism, Calvinism)

Only one is true.

Thank you Pro Life,
Your theology is V8 juice, all mixed up. I detect a strong Dutch Reformed Eschatology.
As far as WW111, read Ezk 38&39 and the book of Rev.
Peace ultimately, only comes with the return of Christ.
You seem to be of a 'Glorious Church' view on the issue of Christ's return: those that feel that Christ won't return until the church dominates the world. That is the ultimate 'works' based system. The whole context of the Rature is that the world has become so evil (...as in the days of Noah...), that God must judge the earth. We certainly are very close.
Your hermeneutic is pretextual, as opposed to contextual. You ignore the fact that Jesus is also 'The Lion of the tribe of Judah', and the ' Avenger of Blood', as well as the 'Kinsman Redeemer' modeled by Boaz in the Book of Ruth. In todays 'peace!peace! world, a returning Christ, whose 'vesture is dipped in blood', doesn't fit well with some Christians view of scripture.
Your claiming to know the state of another 'Christians' salvation sounds like a study in 'specks & planks.'

Since the original question was about sermons, I thought that I'd cut/paste some sermon topics from both Wasilla, and Saddleback (America's most beloved pastor) to see the difference.

Saddleback:
Setting Financial Goals

Wasilla
A Call to Repentance

Saddleback:
Managing Your Time

Wasilla:
Do Not Despise the Small Things

Saddleback:
Handling Toxic People

Wasilla
Let The Temple Glorify God

Saddleback:
Lightening Your Load

Wasilla
Sin is Personal to God

Saddleback:
Breaking Free from Desperate Hidden Lives


Wasilla:
Let Justice & Righteousness Flow

Saddleback:
What I Eat and What's Eating me


Wasilla:
Deliverance From the Day the Lord


Now, I haven't listened to any of these but if the titles are any indication, then this pastor is not completely off track.

"OK,What business is it of Christians to fight under one worldly (satanic)flag versus another when our citizenship is in Heaven? Is it OK for us to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in this case but not in the case of marriage? Also, isn't war always about money (James Chapter 5)"

Your first question is loaded. Governments are ordained by God and we are required to obey them (Rom. 13) unless they require that we do evil (Acts 5).

Your second question is loaded, too (surprise!). Read Augustine's City of God, and learn a thing or two about Christians far wiser than us wrestled with the two cities.

War is, of course, about money, but so is marriage and ministry. The fact that there is an economic component to an activity does not make it ipso facto immoral. After all, helping the poor is about money. But would you consider that immoral. So, I'm not sure what your point is.

"OK,What business is it of Christians to fight under one worldly (satanic)flag versus another when our citizenship is in Heaven? Is it OK for us to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in this case but not in the case of marriage? Also, isn't war always about money (James Chapter 5)"

Your first question is loaded. Governments are ordained by God and we are required to obey them (Rom. 13) unless they require that we do evil (Acts 5).

Your second question is loaded, too (surprise!). Read Augustine's City of God, and learn a thing or two about how Christians far wiser than us wrestled with the two cities.

War is, of course, about money, but so is marriage and ministry. The fact that there is an economic component to an activity does not make it ipso facto immoral. After all, helping the poor is about money. But would you not consider that immoral. So, I'm not sure what your point is.

Re: Thanks Francis,

>Your first question is loaded. Governments are ordained by God and we are required to obey them (Rom. 13) unless they require that we do evil (Acts 5).

>> This is what we are talking about when we say unjust war is evil. The Neoconservative doctrine of preemptive strike rules out justifiable war.

RE: Tim,

Here is a question you can ask any Christian to find out what theological school they abide in. Ask it a Wasilla, ask it at Rev. Wrights Church. I'll bet they both answer the same way. If they do not answer it correctly, both are cults by historic standards.

Jesus said whosoever believes will be saved.

The question is: are you saved because you believe? or do you believe because you are saved?

This single question will separate most every cult from true Christianity.

"This is what we are talking about when we say unjust war is evil. The Neoconservative doctrine of preemptive strike rules out justifiable war."

Why? So, if we had info that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked a day before Japan sent its planes, it would not have been justified to destroy them before they took off?

""This is what we are talking about when we say unjust war is evil. The Neoconservative doctrine of preemptive strike rules out justifiable war."

Why? So, if we had info that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked a day before Japan sent its planes, it would not have been justified to destroy them before they took off?"

------------------------------
That did happen as a matter of fact. A few hours before the attack a Japanese sub was found poking around restricted waters and depth charged and sunk. The destroyer radioed it in but the message was written off as a boy crying wolf.
The story is well documented and you can find it in Walter Lord's "Day of Infamy" among other historical sources.

Pro Life,

Historically there are about three main marks of all cults - rewriting their own version of Scripture, denying the full humanity and/or deity of Jesus, and claiming that any deviation from the tenets of the sect amounts to damnable heresy (the idea that "we are the only TRUE church").

Jesus is our Judge. He came to save the world, not condemn it. You must know that within the Church there has been a long running debate about whether man plays any active role in his own salvation, with bona fide believers lining up on either side of the schematic from Arminius to Calvin. You have not the authority nor the wisdom to pronounce damnation on other people who do not match your particular definition of the means of grace. The Bible does not grant you this authority.

You might reread Luke 6:37 to the end of the chapter, where Jesus talks about having a plank in your eye. He said the following: "Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned...A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher." Before going to Wasilla and Chicago to condemn innocent believers, you might examine where you yourself have fallen short of the perfect law of love.

>Why? So, if we had info that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked a day before Japan sent its planes, it would not have been justified to destroy them before they took off?"

>>This proves my point. The US had broken Jap code in 1936. They new it was coming well in advance. They parked most of the navy in a vulnerable position and cut off 80% of Japans oil obviously hoping this would happen. The US let it happen so they could rally public support to enter WWII in behalf of the global bankers (Federal Reserve)who would not be able to collect their loans if Hitler prevailed.

>>>Also, if I provoke a fight, and know the guy is going to get me, is it justifiable to shoot him first from a distance when I provoked the fight in the first place. This is US foreign policy in miniature.

>Historically there are about three main marks of all cults -

Every religion on the planet has a system of works as a means of salvation except Calvinistic Christianity. Arminianism is not Christianity.

we reiterate:

1) we save our selves = cult

2) God helps us to save our selves = cult

3) God alone saves us = Christianity

But, Pro Life, what Sage is telling you is true. You have in effect perverted the Augustinian scheme / Calvinsim to say that one must have at least a minimum knowledge of the doctrine to be saved, and not only that, they must demonstrate it as though it were a work, ie learn it well enough and you'll be saved. I happen to be Calvinistic to the point of leaning toward [what some call the extreem] supralapsarianism view but still would not judge based on the formula you use.

p.s. Supralapsarianism is offensive to most because of the implications that God actively "damns" the reprobate much the same way He actively "saves" the elect.

Brad B

> Brad B

When I was converted to Christ I wanted nothing to do with religion or church in any form. Christ came to me, I had a conviction of sin, and I told others in the days that followed, something like "I don't know what's going on but I think it is Christ." I began praying and reading the Bible. It was only after many years of Arminian indoctrination that I learned of Calvinism.

Arminians can be saved, but not because of the Arminian gospel, it's in spite of it.

I did not attend church until after I was converted.

I tried saving myself a couple of times as a kid, to no avail, when some psycho evangelist sparked a highly emotional frenzy to my ears, while attending Arminian cults with my parents.

Thanks

> Also, I believe the Billy Graham approach to the Gospel only packs the Church with unregenerate tares. I believe this rabid rapture ready Republican movement AKA the pro Israel religious right are dragging America towards WWIII. Add the visions and voices of Pentecostalism to the mix and you can't miss. Remember, "Alaska is there for refuge when Armageddon hits." Translated, that means when we start WWIII.

Pro Life,

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

Ephesians 4:29-32

The comments to this entry are closed.