Crystal Cathedral et al

Without ever having heard any critism of him anywhere. I stopped listening to him a long time ago. I noticed in his messages that he says a lot about God but says very little about Jesus.

Roy

 

Schuller was influenced by Norman Vincent Peale, who in turn was a student of Ernest Holmes, founder of the Church of Religious Science. This Church is one of the products of the New Thought Movement, along with the Unity School of Christianity, the Church of Christ Scientist, and churches of Divine Science. Much of Schuller's teachings reflect New Thought beliefs about the power of your mind and thinking. The Power of Positive Thinking, a New Thought principle popularized by Peale, is not just thinking positively, as many believe, but it is based on a belief that by thinking certain things you can bring them about. The New Thought Movement was a forerunner (or major influencer) of the modern New Age Movement.

For more info on New Thought:
NEW THOUGHT HOME PAGE

An article critical of Schuller's theology with a quote from Schuller:

An article critiquing Peale:
http://www.watchman.org/reltop/peale.htm

 

Robert Schuller is clearly another false teacher.
Here is his entry at apologetics index:
www.apologeticsindex.org/s09.html

An adherent to religious pluralism: rejecting that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross is the only way to be saved. In fact, he stated that asking people to change their faith was, "utterly ridiculous."

"When I first met the grand mufti...I sensed the presence of God," he wrote in his autobiography.
Well, you get the idea: he is bad news.

 

And yet Schuller was invited by National Assoc. of Evangelicals president Ted Haggard to be an NAE speaker:
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/naeschuller.html

(Some also see problems with Haggard)

 

About Schuller's music -- you'll notice if you ever watch a service there that they make wholesale changes to the text of the hymns they sing. They don't teach or sing sound doctrine.

Andy

 

Andy,

Good catch. I've noticed that too. They edit the hymns be removing references to sin, sinners, etc. Schuller is an apostate.

 

A couple of things:

1 - His focus is on the unchurched. I've seen people who have come to the Lord via his church. I don't think the long-time churched community will find what they need. Just my $.02.

2 - What you see on TV is not what happens on Sunday mornings. That's the case of any of the tv preachers that televise their services. I have attended Schuller's services on occaision (my cousin is a member there), but don't watch the broadcast. The only person I watch more than occaisionally is D James Kennedy.

3 - I think the concerns about the music are overrated. They sometimes use contemporary and alternate hymn texts (actually, I'm surprised at how many people don't even realize that alternate hymn texts even exist). Then again, a little old lady at my own church got irate because we sang the words "how firm a foundation" to the tune "Adeste fideles". She said the minister of music had butchered two nice hymns. What she didn't realize is that the word to "how firm" were an alternate text to "adeste" long before she was born. I sympathized with her, but felt bad that she was ignorant. Anyhoo, I do agree with Dr Bob. Wonderful music. Few churches have such a great music program. In the big picture, I'm no fan of hymnal theology. Way too many people who hold music to the level of scripture. Just visit any CCM thread for a cross section of that.

4 - What we see on TV is not a whole picture of a church. Schuller is not all that the Crystal Cathedral is. He's the talking head on the program "Hour of Power". I live in the church's vicinity (about 5 miles away), and can attest to the church itself being a great light in the community. They're an RCA church, and adhere to RCA standards. They feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, and they have a highly praised suicide prevention program that has literally saved thousands of lives. I'm not a fan of Schuller, but I do appreciate the church itself being in my community. I think it's important to differentiate the difference.

I'd venture to say that the same could be said for Coral Ridge Presby (Kennedy) or Liberty Baptist (Falwell). I've never visited these churches, but I'd guess that the actual congregations likely do not bear any resemblence to the tunnel vision view of what we get on the tube.

 

John, how does anyone come to the Lord through Schuller's "ministry" when he rejects the sinfulness of man? He doesn't preach the gospel -- he preaches a perverted gospel that, as Paul says in Galatians, is no gospel. It's not good news and it has no ability to save.

Andy

 

You've alrady decided that no one can come to the Lord Schuller's ministry. Do you really think I'm going to waste my time arguing the point with you? I think it's sad, however, that you would presume that any associate of mine who was saved through his ministry isn't really saved. Alas, this board is full of people who will gladly say that, for example, somone can't be saved if the attend Rick Warren's church, or Bill Hybels' church, or Schuller's church, or Kennedy's church, or if they go to a Billy Graham crusade, etc etc etc. I disagree with several of these men. But I would never prejudge a person's salvation because of such.

 

No one who embraces the false teaching of Schuller is saved. That is not just my opinion but the settled truth from God's Word. I think it is sad that you would give a friend false hope in believing a false gospel.

Now, could your associated be saved? Sure, but not by believing what Schuller teaches. It would be in spite of Schuller, not because of Schuller.


Andy

 

One would hope that this would be the case for all of us: That we're saved in spite of, not because of.

 

John, Paul says in Gal. 1:8, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."

Do you think that statement applies to any modern day religious leaders? If not Schuller, then who?

Andy

 

If you apply that in the manner you're suggesting, then every time a preacher said something that I disagreed with, then I'd have to call him accursed. That would include my own pastor, and like yours as well. If you agree with your pastor all the time, there's a problem. If you think your pastor is right all the time, there's definitely a problem.

 

Well, how is Paul applying it then? What does he mean and how can we apply it today? Obviously, it's not a matter of simple disagreement, as your examples show. Something more fundamental must be at stake. Does it mean anything to us today?

Andy

 

Galations 1 is a case against salvation by works.

In Galations 1 Paul is addressing issues raised by Judaizers, who were complaining that Paul was changing the Gospel they received to satisfy the Gentiles. Judaizers believed that Christians had to adhere to OT Jewish law.

Paul describes his confrontation with Peter. Peter at first believed that Gentile Christians would have to convert to Judaism and observe the laws and traditions. Paul presented him with the argument that trying to obtain salvation through works, as in observing the law, destroyed their central message that we are saved by faith through the sacrifice of Jesus. Peter relented and agreed.

He then tells his audience that he has been given the authority by Jesus own disciples, John, James and Peter, as minister to the Gentiles.

It is Paul's warning that, if you're approached by someone who insists that salvation is by some work, then it is better to let that person be cursed than to listen to him.

Paul goes on to make the case for Salvation through faith in Christ in Galatians 2; explains the purpose Of the OT Law, and Christ's fulfillment of it in Gal 3; discusses Christian living in Gal 5; and instructs us to bear one anothers burdens in Gal 6.

 

OK, although I think accursed is stronger than cursed. Do you think that "salvation by some work" is the only corruption of the gospel that Paul has in mind in Gal. 1:8?

Andy

 

There are a few on this board that do that every day. We put up with them here, why not in "real" life

I for one, have no authority to accurse Schuller or anyone else, I'll leave the accursing up to God, but I certainly would not affiliate with his ministry in any way.

Although come to think of it, I did read the Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren, does that count

sorry Dr. Bob, I shouldn't have started that one up again.

 

Paul is specific to that point in Gal 1, as he was addressing the theology of Judaizers, who insisted that salvation come by faith in Christ AND adherence to Mosaic Law (had to be circumcised, had to refrain from eating certain foods, etc.)

 

Actually, Paul is not specific in Gal 1. While it is true that he deals with a specific corruption of the gospel in latter chapters, his condemnation in verses 8 and 9 refer to any corruption (whether by "we," "angel from heaven," or "anyone") not just a specific corruption by a specific individual or group.

I think the question we need to answer is, How can one corrupt the gospel so that it isn't the gospel any more (as per Gal. 1:6-7)?

Andy