Steve Saint Speaks Out, Finally.

1. Interesting how it is the Christians who are portrayed as the ignorant mob persecuting poor Nate Saint here.

2. It is also interesting what a low view of God's Sovereignty Mr. Saint appears to have.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Bunyon, we need a link for the above article & it will have to be trimmed out to comply about copyright rules when the board comes back up.

Thanks,
LE

 

would be nice to have the original. anyone could have written it and said it was news

 

Sure. Thanks, Bunyon.

 

Thanx bunyan

 

I have really said all I want to say on this (on the general discusson board). However I do think some replies are needed.

In the article Chad Allen is quoted:

==The problem here is two-fold. First the message of the movie has been lost by the production company hiring Mr Allen. You can't have a movie about christian missionaries when one of the main missionaries is played by a homosexual activist. At that point the message is lost. Why? That brings me to point two: Chad Allen's lifestyle is at odds with the message of Christianity and thus with Christian missionaries. How he thought he could play this role and that not get in the way is beyond me. However it is even more beyond me how the production company did not see it as a major problem.

Now. There is no fear or anger on my part of or at homosexuals. I disapprove of their lifestyle because God Himself has disapproved of it in the Scriptures. I want homosexuals to repent and turn to Christ. I want to see them saved. As is no practicing homosexual can enter the Kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-11). It is not hatred or fear that drives me. Whether it is homosexuals, liars, fornicators, gossips, or anyone else my concern is the same: salvation from sin, death, and hell. I just want to see folks like Mr Allen saved from their sin and its horrible results. I think John MacArthur would agree with me on that as would my pastor, many in my church, and many on this board. This is not about anger or fear, it is about concern.

Paul said:
"And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." 1Cor 2:1-2

It is not about what sin the sinner is guilty of. It is about the fact that we are sinners and we all need to be saved. The production company did Mr Allen no favors when they placed him in this movie. Instead they added to his delusion that homosexuals and christians can agree to disagree (ie...look over the differences). Sad, very sad.

__________________________________________

Mr Saint is quoted next:

==This is a tragedy. However considering the state of modern evangelicalism it is expected. Mr Saint leaves out that the women in the account was REPENTANT and she was told by the Lord to "GO AND SIN NO MORE". I guess Mr Saint did not read that far?

From what I can tell Mr Allen is not repentant at all. Mr Saint's bad choice cannot be justified by any Scripture much less John 7:53-8:11.

______________________________________________

Mr Saint again:

==This is way too subjective. If the Scriptures condemn homosexuality and those who approve of those who practice it, why does Mr Saint say this dream was from God? Seems like Mr Saint's dream and the Scriptures are contradicting each other. What Mr Allen saw on that movie set was a bunch of nice people, who claimed to be Christians, yet who were willing to over-look his sin. He witnessed compromise and it made him more confident in his sin. I'm sorry Mr Saint but the "I had a dream" trick will not work. I have heard it one too many times from all sorts of folks claiming all sorts of things. We must judge all things by the Word of God, the final standard, and not by dreams that can have all sorts of causes.

_____________________________________________

==Clever dodge. However that is not what this is about. Nobody, that I know of, has said only Christians can play in these movies. However a person who is a activist for sin...that is a different story.

This is so sad.
Martin.

 

QUOTE: "Chad Allen's lifestyle is at odds with the message of Christianity..."

Since when is the message of Christianity about what you do or don't do?

 

This topic has been beat to death on other threads. There would be no uproar if the pastors had not made a point of shifting the focus of the message from Christ's servants onto Chad Allen. Chad didn't seek this publicity. He was simply doing his job - and according to the director of the movie, he was the best qualified of those who tried out for the role.

As simplistic as it has come to sound, 'What Would Jesus Do?' in this circumstance is probably the exact opposite of what these pastors are doing.

 

I think all who have an interest on this topic have said all that needs to be said. We need another thread on this topic like we need a hole in the head. Every single thread on the topic has produced no fruit. Do we really need another? No thanks, until I have a chance to see the movie and can comment in full objectivity, I'm steering clear.

 

I think all who have an interest on this topic have said all that needs to be said. We need another thread on this topic like we need a hole in the head. Every single thread on the topic has produced no fruit. Do we really need another? No thanks, until I have a chance to see the movie and can comment in full objectivity, I'm steering clear. </font>[/QUOTE]JohnV, people should feel free to comment as much as they want. Just because you've decided there have been enough threads and no fruit, does not mean everyone should be quiet. If you don't like the topic, then don't go to the thread. I would like to comment on the dream and I will.

 

I don't think this dream came from God because of the phrase "God's children." Aren't we only children when adopted as child of God through faith in Christ? Of course, all people are God's creation and I believe God loves them, but not all people are "God's children."

 

Well, I don't disagree with you there. Interesting, though, that you put it in such terms. In another thread, I was told by someone who disagreed with my comments I should leave the thread instead of commenting further. Go figure. If I stay and comment, it's suggested I refrain from doing so, and if I suggest we refrain from commenting, it's suggested I refrain from doing so. I just can't win.

Don't worry, Marcia, it's just a little sarcasm. Nothing against you. I actually agree with you.

 

Marcia! You need to adjust your thinking into more politically correct terms!

 

I think that's a matter of symantics. I think of the Jesus' example of the birds of the air. Jesus didn't separate the birds into those who were God's children, and those who were not. He simply said "look at the birds of the air ... your heavenly father provides for them". I think, to at least some extent, all people are God's children. But not all are children of God. Does that make sense? All are God's childre, because God created them, even if they deny it. But not all are children of God, because only those who have accepted God as Father are children of God. I know it's a bit oxymoronic, but I think it makes the point.

 

That would be me. But that's because a page or two previous to that you said:

I took it from that you were giving the thread a rest. Then you didn't. So perhaps I misunderstood what you said. Maybe you meant everyone else should give the thread a rest so you could have the last word? What exactly DID you mean?

At any rate, this thread will be closed in typical fashion for this forum on page 3.