Featured Top 100 Christian Leaders in America

Well, you just can't expect too much from the Reformed.



God bless.

 

I would agree. To understand the theology requires a little more than simply embracing a pat Theology System that negates much of Scripture. As people begin to dig into what Scripture has to say as a whole, confusion is the result, often, in the beginning.

However, that confusion results in an understanding which reconciles most of the serious problems most Theology Systems have.

Beats Clancy, lol.

You have been given multiple opportunities to debunk a Pre-Tribulation Rapture view, yet you have never addressed all that has to be examined when trying to measure that view with Scripture.

Just railing against something doesn't help anyone to understand either view.

Is that a problem for you? Are Christians forbidden to have money?

Should we consider that any of the teachers you favor (and for the record I have never read anyone's doctrinal books concerning the Rapture) were better because their works didn't generate a lot of money?

And do you think that any unbeliever that reads those and has his mind turned to Christ will forfeit a chance to repent because he is, in your mind, confused about sound eschatology?

God bless.

 

And you don't think that is a little hasty?

The judgments people come to about you based on your posting, does that honestly reflect who you are as a person, or reveal your motivations?

I don't think so. We can't really know people without close relationship. Judgments of someone based on their public persona are going to be, in my view, lacking.

If anyone has a right to a "tinge of arrogance," my vote would be for MacArthur, lol. The man has earned the right to be dogmatic in his doctrine, and the truth is, anyone who is...is branded arrogant.

Yup. lol

Have a great deal of respect for the man, and think that he is one of the most influential people the Church has ever seen. He reaches millions, and while we might find disagreement on certain points, when it comes to soteriology, I cannot think of one person that could denounce MacArthur's position successfully.

And the importance of soteriology is, for many, forgotten in their squabbles over secondary doctrines. Some will debate until they're blue in the fingertips to declare a Doctrinal Distinctive, and forsake weightier matters.

John MacArthur doesn't do that. We have to remember that his ministry is first and foremost to his congregation, and unless we want to say that no-one in his fellowship has been led to Christ, and, compare our ministries and the fruit thereof with his, and say ours is even comparable, then perhaps it is best to give respect where it is due.

We can still poke fun at whoever we want, though...




God bless.

 

How long was Kenneth Hagen in ministry? Does that make his theology sound? Kenneth Copeland? Joseph Smith? Charles Taze Russel?

Only when our doctrine is put to the test do we see what is lacking, and I can tell you, from my own perspective, LaHaye is extremely sound in the concepts incorporated into the Left Behind series.

This is relevant to the sound nature of doctrine...how?

Shall we say that since heterosexual marriage as the only true marriage is becoming unpopular, even in many denominations that were once fairly sound, that the doctrine is justified?

We can't base doctrinal purity on the likes and dislikes of a majority, or, on what is popular with a majority.

That's why we have a-millennial brethren.



And that is why we have groups advocating Baptismal Regeneration. And works-based salvation.

If we change our doctrine, or embrace doctrine based on that/those reasons, we become simply adherents to a religious system, and cease to be Bible Students as we should be.

The point is this: LaHaye is not just known for eschatological views.

You can look here to see something else he has been involved in, and I will ask you to criticize that as well.

Here as well.

Many that "separate" themselves from LaHaye based on the popularity of the Left Behind series show, in my view, that their joining of themselves to him was based on popularity.

That's not how we do it.

We join ourselves to Christ and the Word of God, and if someone fall into agreement, we acknowledge it. If someone disagrees, we acknowledge that too.

But before we go around slandering others we had best be prepared to test their doctrine in light of Scripture. And I can tell you from experience, most Post-Trib believers, who are the group that hates Lahaye the most, lol, fall very short in their doctrine. They create irreconcilable issues in their doctrine that are reconciled through a Pre-Tribulation understanding.

But I am glad for my post-trib brethren, because they make discussion and debate interesting. And better a post-Trib view than an a-millennial view, a view that became popular and has held the most adherents over the course of Church History.

God bless.

 

If LaHaye had written a Commentary on Revelation and made money, money that would be fine even though his commentary would be eisegesis rather than exegesis. However, writing a series of fictitious and false books on Revelation, including some in versions for children, attempting to scare the "hell" out of children and adults simply to make money is an abomination.

 

The pre-tribulation-"snatching away" of the Church has no basis in Scripture. It is the invention of John Nelson Darby while he was recuperating from a riding accident and supposedly had an epiphany while reading Isaiah 32. That is a historical fact and you can deny all you wish but it does not change reality.

I realize you will claim you never heard of John Nelson Darby but educate yourself and read the following by dispensational scholar, Thomas Ice!

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

 

Can you present any Baptist Confessions that embrace the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church!

 

You are hardly qualified to declare whose doctrine is eisegesis and exegesis, lol.

You can show yourself competent in discussion of the issues, but you refuse to do that.

No thanks. My doctrine is not based on the work of others, but my own.

The only way you cur own view is through slander of others and their views, rather than presenting Biblical presentation to negate the veracity of the Rapture.

Honestly...you are stuck, my friend. You are consumed. You post false witness against people...you don't even know. You want to tell me what my doctrine is? Or do you actually want to address my doctrinal view?

Again, you have been given opportunity to, but you hide behind accusations and slander of people I am not even involved with, nor are many other Rapture adherents.

You will never, and I mean never...take the catching away of the Church out of the Bible.

And you will never, and I mean never...make Scripture conform to your doctrine, which is greatly lacking in reconciling that which is actually presented in Scripture and Prophecy.

The Church will not be caught up at the end of the Tribulation. The church will not be caught up prior to the establishment of the new heavens and earth.

The Church will be caught up in an event we cannot place within Tribulation events. The best place to see that is prior to the Tribulation.

Why would I want to, particularly when I have presented Biblical declarations which cannot be refuted?

But that's a problem for you. If it isn't taught by your group...it isn't true. Who cares what the Bible has to say about it...

God bless.

 

Um you missed my point. Did I slander Lehaye or did I just point out the fact that he has not really been on the scene for about 15 years now.
Do you know what my eschatology is?
I'll give you a hint I'm neither post trib or amill.
I have his books on my bookshelf but that does not mean I consider him in the top 100 here in 2015 when there are so many other names that did not get mentioned that are much more influential today.
I don't appreciate being compared to WOF heritics when all I did was point out a simple fact and ask how they came up with the list and numbering system. I used Lehaye because his was the first name that made me scratch my head since he was so high yet not on the scene in the same popular way those above him were.

 

Better yet, and more relevant, let's see why MacArthur didn't sign it, and you judge him, seeing that he is the target in the general premise:


• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.

In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.


Taken from GTY.org.


It seems that MacArthur is consistent in his teaching and positions in regards to the vital necessity of Doctrinal Purity.

Not sure why you would favor an ecumenical movement over such a position. Rather than a reason to hold MacArthur in contempt, I view this as just another reason to see him as a man of integrity, particularly when it comes to doctrine.

While on the surface such movements might seem worthy, we cannot ever give the appearance that sound doctrine takes a backseat to practical matters. We can fight abortion and advocate the sanctity of life without joining hands with groups that teach that which we disagree with. There is simply no reconciling certain Catholic Doctrines, certain Charismatic Doctrines, and who knows what...with Biblical Doctrine, in my view.

I'll stand with MacArthur on this one. Just as I did concerning the ECT Document.

If you feel doctrine should not separate the groups that are out there, that is your decision. But because of a mentality like this, we are also asked to accept Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, and in fact be tolerant of any religion. If we do not, even as you cast MacArthur into a category of being unreasonable and standing in opposition of a good movement, so too we all will be branded arrogant, intolerant, and, well, bull-headed.

I'm okay with that.

If my doctrine and practice fall under fire then I hope to have the integrity to address it honestly, and see if what is said is true. But I will not pat another on the back and say, "Whatever you want to believe and whatever you want to do is okay with God, my friend."

That is probably the most damaging dishonesty in the world, regardless of whether it has sincere motivation. We can't align ourselves with people who diminish the importance sound doctrine is given in Scripture.

Atheists can have sincere, and even moral intentions, but we don't overlook their condition. While I do not deny salvation to everyone associated with groups with aberrant doctrine, neither will I fail to point out why I see that group as in error.

But you tell me, after reading MacArthur's explanation, that you cannot understand his position, and that you can condemn him for not jumping on this new ecumenical bandwagon.


God bless.

 

No, I addressed each point I saw needing address.

You tell me...

Well, maybe calling someone and their ministry the "stuff of ridicule" is not, in your eyes, slander, okay.

But if you want to show why his theology is the stuff of ridicule, or his ministry of over more than 20 years, lol, then proceed.

All I know, from other posts you have made, is that you ridicule a Pre-Trib view. Would you like me to post some of your ministry?

So what are you and what is the Biblical basis for you doctrine?

If you want to show what twenty years of study results in...I'm all ears.

I already know what you consider him. And I think it is not only uncharitable but have to question why someone would get so enthralled with ridiculing any one person is beyond me.

Aren't there better ways for us to spend our time?

And I don't appreciate it when someone is not completely honest with me in discussion.

For one thing, I did not associate you with anyone:

The point had nothing to do with association but addressed the false suggestion that long association means one is sound in their Doctrine. These men ministered longer than you, yet their doctrine is questionable to the point where you, lol, object to the thought of being associated with them.

Secondly, don't pretend you have not, on other threads, been derisive towards Pre-Trib views.

Ever think that like Christianity is the only faith that is really singled out in this world, because it is true, that the Pre-Trib, which is one of the most singled out doctrinal views...might also have something to it?

Just how much have you studied a pre-trib view from Scripture? How have you reconciled your own views with the harmonious nature of all Biblical Prophecy?

Tell me what your view is and present the Word of God that supports it.

And anyone, I mean anyone, that denies that Lahaye is without a doubt one of the most influential men in Church History...isn't really dealing with reality.

Like him, hate him, or just don't care, the Left Behind series was read by countless millions. Among them, I would assume there would have been unbelievers.

You scratched your head, I am guessing, because of your dislike of his doctrinal position, rather than in regards to how he has influenced many people.

I have not looked at the list, but from what others have said, from a Christian perspective, I would think he is just a little more influential concerning Christianity than, say, a Country Singer.

If you have been offended, don't be. I have not intended to offend, simply respond to what you have said. No malice was intended. But I am a Pre-Trib believer and glad to discuss it with anyone.

You can present your views if you like, and that might be interesting. Not a post tribber, not an amil believer, so that leaves little else to be. Please declare at this time what that might be.


God bless.

 

So you are okay with his arrogance?



God bless.

 

Again that is just pointing out a fact that you yourself concede later in this post, and yes some of that has been from the anti-dispensationalist crowd but pointing out that their is ridicule does not mean you are slandering someone. I could just as easily say that Jesus was ridiculed, since that is a fact. Doesn't mean I'm joining in on that ridicule.

I have no desire to point out why, just the fact that it happened and that he is not on the radar like he was in 1995-2000. One only has to go to a bookstore and see that Left Behind et all are no longer being sold, or no longer have an entire shelf dedicated to them like they did when those books first came out. Is that Slander to point that out?

I have a ministry? Well that is news to me. I'm just posting on a message board and maybe playing devils advocate with people.

I consider myself a part of the dispensational camp, and I use the Bible as my basis for Doctrine

Been there done that. I honestly wore myself out on discussing Eschatology about 10 years ago and have no desire to get back into that pit.

Do you know what I consider him?
Again as I pointed out earlier in this post that pointing out that someone is ridiculed is not the same as ridiculing that person.

Agreed

So you did not quote me and then bring up Kenneth Hagen, Kenneth Copeland etc?

That does not seem fair then that you question if I have ever studied this topic and then when I give you an answer you dismiss it by bringing up vile heretics.

Don't plan on pretending that. I know what I have said. Doesn't mean I did not enjoy reading Left Behind during its moment in the spotlight and pre-order each book as they came out.
Also doesn't mean that I have to agree with the position of someone to agree with their inclusion on the list. I mean Joel Osteen was #2 and he is a huge heretic who has a huge following.

Enough to be able argue the pre-trib view. Enough to write papers on it if I so chose. Every church I have been to until my current one was a pre-trib church. The Bible College I went to was dispensational pre-trib and consider all other views heretical. Enough that I have an entire bookshelf full of pre-trib books. I know your position and I could argue your position, but I don't consider eschatology to be on the same level as soteriology so I really don't want to spend too much energy on it.

I will respectfully decline. As I have said I have been their done that and don't care to get into it again. Besides that would really belong in another thread.

It was not all of Church History, and lets be honest if we want to list the 100 most influential men in all of Church History starting with the Apostles and moving forward Lehaye would not crack that top 100. Would he be on the list, probably but not in the top 100. This list is specific to 2015 though as the opening sentence says
"Newsmax is out with its list of the top 100 Christian leaders in America who make a real impact on modern lives in 2015."

Has nothing to do with my opinion on his doctrinal position, as I pointed out earlier the heretic Joel Osteen is on there and I don't deny his place since he is influential.

Hard to have a discussion when you have not looked at what is being discussed just jumping on someone for mentioning one of your favorite teachers.

I was only offended by you putting me in with the WOF Heretics. Everything else I figure it just a friendly debate.

 

LaHaye is a Darbyite!

 

If you said, after I am gone, "Darrell C had a few god posts but everyone has departed from him and his views, they are the stuff of ridicule," could you impose anything positive into that?

That means you agree that the ridicule is justified.

They were there the last time I was there, but then, that has been a little while.

Here is a quick definition of slander:

slander. n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.


Do you want to argue about whether his theology is the stuff of ridicule?

I will tell you now I see your statement as untrue and that it has a damaging consequence as it holds the potential for those who tend to believe what they want without verifying facts.

In order to prove his theology is the stuff of ridicule you have some work ahead of you. You will have to prove to each individual that asks you to answer for your charge what doctrine should be ridiculed and why.

That individual, currently, is me.

We all have a ministry, BW.

Well, now that you know, perhaps you will be a little more circumspect in the future, because there is always some nut in the crowd...like me.

And I would suggest to you that Scripture means what it says in regard to "every word." And when it comes to slander...we should not be charged with it.

I know you meant no harm, and the basis is your disagreement with a Pre-Trib View. This view takes more fire than any other, and the sad fact is that it is a great discussion which can benefit both sides. Highly interesting and it will force you to dig deeper than the average student does.

Specifically, eschatologically speaking is what I meant. Don't be ashamed to declare your view. It is better if we have our views tested through discussion and debate. A brother or sister can sometimes point things out we haven't previously given consideration to, which can implact our own understanding.

Not with me.

You need to put that thought out of your head immediately, lol. Our Soteriology hinges upon a good understanding of Eschatology.

For example, the resurrections Scripture teaches help us to better understand the Rapture, which is first and foremost a resurrection itself. Most get hung up on the catching away and when it takes place.

Judging by your statement...someone worthy of ridicule.

I responded...

I did not charge you as woefully lacking, yet you took offense apparently. Seems a double standard to me. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to LaHaye as you feel you deserve, whether you misinterpret something correctly or not.

It's a fine line...lol.

So you don't feel Lahaye's theology should be ridiculed? I can't look at your posts and present numerous occasions where you have ridiculed the Pre-Trib view? I can think of one right now that would definitely support my point.

But I won't do that, lol. I am not interested in personal issues...just the Doctrine itself.

Hey, you don't seem to understand how this works: your not supposed to agree with me...people are watching, you know.

As I said, in no way did I equate you in association with these guys. The point was centered on your suggestion that having studied something for a long time demands soundness. Your own, in fact.

Try to understand that.


Continued...

 

I said...

...to which you responded...

...to which I responded...

Nothing that equates or associates you with their doctrine.

Understand?

Oh, lol, the truth comes out.

I read them too. As I said, beats Clancy, lol. I thought they were a good read. That was back when I still read fiction. Don't really get the chance to do that much anymore. Matter of fact, I never finished the last book. Not sure why, but never did. Need to do that someday, maybe.

But more relevant, in the books (to which LaHaye just provides a doctrinal basis, Jenkins is really the Author), there is little that I would take issue with. I didn't learn my theology from those books, but I do see Revelation as best understood as a sequential series of events and judgments. The worst advice I have ever heard and still hear is "Revelation is not in chronological order."

It is.

Okay, I won't charge slander on this though in a court of law you might be in trouble.

He is a false teacher and conveys damnable demon doctrine. And I think our freedom of speech would keep it from coming to trial, as well as the fact that we can justify our position. lol

Argue for it? Or against it. Both would have to be put to the test.

But no interest in debating it?

What is the new one, if you don't mind me asking.

That's the problem I have with taking such an extreme view. When we look at the Basis of Belief for the different views, all of them have reasonable support to the point we can at least understand why someone would embrace them. To declare heresy is better reserved for those who diminish Christ. Not what someone understands eschatologically (unless that diminishes the Person of Christ, that is).

I have a few bought years ago. But I seldom get outside my Bible these days. Say, what's the weather been like?

And I think that is a mistake, but that is just my opinion. I used to say the same thing.

Then perhaps you shouldn't take potshots either, lol. Like I said, there a nut in every crowd...

Doesn't matter. The population of the world makes it possible for men today to reach more than possible in history. And while there are continuing results of ministries, Calvin and Arminius, for example, who continue to reach men, that levels the playing field.

Not sure that would be true. Again, the population changes things. Lahaye has been read, not just for Left Behind, but for doctrinal works as well...by millions.

But...we're not done with 2015 yet. lol

Still think LaHaye would make it. He's just a big name and has done quite a bit.

C'mon...

But it's LaHaye you commented on, showing you disfavor the Pre-Trib view over the blasphemous heresies of one like Joel Osteen. Interesting. You must really disapprove of the Pre-Trib Rapture.

Not as hard as you think. I don't have to read it to suggest both Lahaye is an influential Christian and that his doctrine is hardly the "stuff of ridicule."

I didn't jump on you, you're misinterpretation caused you to take a defensive posture because you felt attacked. Read it again.

I do admit it was a job at anyone that rejects the Pre-Trib view, though...



So you're defensive reaction was not entirely paranoia.

It should all be friendly debate among brethren, but, misinterpretation is the mother of all conflicts.

I can tell you the heresies and blasphemous teachings of that movement make Rapture squabbles pale in comparison. All Christians should be united on that front.

However, I would also say that one should be prepared to criticize a doctrine and it's adherents if they want to take potshots. Offending our brothers and sisters is going to happen sometimes, because doctrine divides...Church History and even this forum proves that. But be ready to give an answer to any man...

...right?

And if we cannot justify our doctrine and practice, we separate ourselves from a Biblical hope, and adopt the hope the world knows, which is, after all, wishful thinking.


God bless.

 

Not true! At least, I have never seen him wearing one of those funny little hats.




God bless.