On another note, do we have to actually mention a specific Scripture in our sermons / talks etc for our talks to be Scripturally correct.

Hello Craig,

The answer to this question is absolutely yes! Because a sermon without Scripture has no authority. A sermon with Scripture is a pep-talk. The role of a preacher is to preach the Word. This means preaching the Bible on its own terms. If a preacher is preacher is preaching without mentioning Scripture then what he is doing willingly or unwillingly is teaching his listeners to be undescerning, to not engage with the the Word but to merely assume what the preacher is saying is correct.  This is very dangerous.It is to easy for people to get things wrong and for the preacher to get things wrong.  Remember how the Bereans responded to Paul’s preaching in Acts 17:11.

When Paul speaks with Timothy he exhorts him to preach the Word (See 2 Tim 3:10 - 4:5).

As a pastor who preaches every week there is no way that I would never preach a sermon blind or a sermon without Scripture.  Expository preaching ensures that I preach God’s Word as God’s Word and not use the text to preach a hobby horse. It also means that the congregation will keep me in check.

If I don’t use the Bible in preaching it sends the wrong message to the congregation about how to read the Bible, how to use the BIble and it promotes assumption. On my part preaching would merely become an opportunity to talk about the things I want to rather than what God says in His Word.

If a preacher is preaching without the Bible he should sit in the pew and stay there - he will do far less damage.

Hi all.

Interesting topic - particularly as I like Terry have been listening to the White Horse Inn’s 2008 series on Christless Christianity, and have watched a number of Osteen clips in the last couple of months.

With all due respect, and understanding that some people on this forum wil disagree with me, I personally have very little time for Joel Osteen.  As a motivational speaker he is fantastic; as a pastor I think he is leading his sheep into some very dangerous territory.  The majority of his teaching amounts to salvation/redemption by works (his books, for example, lay out series of things his readers need to do in order for God bless them) - if it can honestly be called ‘salvation’ at all in this context, for Osteen in his positivist mindset consistently refuses preach the gospel truth that all people are sinners with black hearts beyond imagination, and that God’s love for us is not shown in his giving us ‘our best life now’ but in his rescuing us from the condemnation we rightly deserve only by the blood of his Son Jesus Christ.  And as Christians, isn’t this what we believe?  We preach Christ crucified, not “God wanting us to be positive towards ourselves”, or “how to unlock the precious seeds of greatness that God has placed in us”.  I dearly want to see Osteen preaching the gospel - I just don’t.

Anyway, that’s my rant!!

if someone was having trouble at work with a certain person or persons and went to work and sorted it out, would you say that that person has actually repented of their sin?

Craig, this definitely the right thing for someone to do - Christ commands it in Matt 5.  But just sorting out a wrong isn’t what makes it right - when we have conflict with another person, it is God we are sinning against, and we need to go to him first (In Psalm 51 David has committed murder and adultery, and yet he writes that it is against God, and God only, that he has sinned).  Sorting out conflict, or getting your family priorities right, or whatever - my question is, what’s the motivation? Are we repenting of having made our lives and relationships less great than they ‘should’ be, or of having sinned against God?  It concerns me that Osteen seems to encourage people to take on ‘Christian’ behaviours without addressing the real issues of sin that are at the heart of them…

Long post, sorry!

Nic

Hi Nick,

I agree with you and also with you Josh.

But what do you think of my comments in light of the actual clip of Mark Driscolls sermon which is what I am critiquing. Do you think Mark is really critiquing Osteen according to the short clip of him preaching fairly,,I don’t think he is.

I’ve listened to the Driscoll You tube clip, which includes the Osteen excerpt and have also listened to the entire sermon. I think Mark fairly and even generously [he calls Osteen a brother in Christ, or words to that effect] presented what Osteen was saying.

I think Osteen is saying that God promises wealth, health and prosperity to Christians. I think he is saying that Christians should be winners, not losers in this life.

I would want to say that Christians are ultimately winners, but that in this life we are guaranteed to suffer as Jesus suffered and as Paul suffered. Some of us undergo tremendous hardship for the sake of Christ, or simply as part of our lot in life, due to ill health, poverty, etc.

There is not much of a hint of this in Osteen’s theology, nor in the part of his sermon that Driscoll excerpted.

I think a good balanced presentation of what Christians can expect is found in 2 Corinthians 4. We have had God’s light shine in our hearts and have a joy no one can take away [see Philippians]. But we are also merely jars of clay and we often despair and have sorrow. But in this suffering we are triumphant, not in a health and wealth and prosperity gospel way, but as people who have certain hope and the knowledge that this life is not all there is, but that God has promised final victory to us and eventual peace and perfect health and true wealth in God’s heavenly kingdom.

I think this is what Driscoll was saying, more or less. I don’t think it was Osteen was saying.

Hi Craig,

I agree with David’s points, and definitely don’t think Osteen was coming at his sermon from a 2 Corinthians POV.  Where is Osteen getting this “victors not victims” stuff from anyway?? 

Driscoll may have his critics, but in that clip I can’t fault him for speaking the truth in love (or as an Antipodean might put it, ‘harsh but fair’).  I can see where you’re coming from in that some of Driscoll’s comments go further than what Osteen actually said, however it seems to me that he’s just taking Osteen’s argument to its logical conclusion…

Nicole

Andrew,

We don’t and I have never preached a sermon that named someone as being heretical, frankly I don’t think that there is any Scriptural basis to do such a thing.

We concentrate on preaching the Gospel. Why waste effort on valuable minutes in preaching against someone else and their teaching when there is so much you can preach on in the Scriptures that will inform your congregation how to read the Scriptures for themselves.

There are times when Paul mentions in his letters that he accused someone face to face, but there are no accounts of any of the Apostles preaching against any one in their sermons. The closest would be in Galations where Paul warns against them about the legalism that was creeping into their midst.

But really how much do our congregations listen to the Benny Hinns and Joel OSteens to make it worthwhile preaching against them? You are far more likely to make an impact on them if they are by not mentioning and disparaging them instead concentrate on preaching the Gospel so they can compare the truths themselves.

Craig Bennett - 22 February 2008 05:28 PM

Andrew,

We don’t and I have never preached a sermon that named someone as being heretical, frankly I don’t think that there is any Scriptural basis to do such a thing.

Not true, Craig.

2 tim 2:

16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.

1 tim 1:

20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Hi Gordon,

But is Paul giving an example of his preaching, and is Paul doing this from a pulpit? I don’t think so, he makes a point many times that he only preaches Christ and him crucified.

Also I think perhaps there is a difference in talking about someone elses ministry whom we can’t go and approach directly face to face as the Scriptures say we should and someone who we actually have a relationship with.

I think that Paul is talking about people who are involved with the congregation and not about someone not involved.

I would also ask the question do these preachers who preach so much about other preachers spend much time in prayer asking God to reveal His ways to those they preach against? If not why not?

Craig Bennett - 22 February 2008 06:00 PM

Hi Gordon,

But is Paul giving an example of his preaching, and is Paul doing this from a pulpit? ?

Come off it, Craig-o. A letter that is in the Bible and gets distributed round the church and recorded for eternity is a fair bit more serious than a local and quickly forgotten sermon.

Anyway, don’t you think that this letter would have been read out in Tim’s church, and preached on? What do you think the preacher would have said when they got to the verses in question?

s’pose they might have raised their eyebrows and winked knowingly.

Hi Craig.

We concentrate on preaching the Gospel. Why waste effort on valuable minutes in preaching against someone else and their teaching when there is so much you can preach on in the Scriptures that will inform your congregation how to read the Scriptures for themselves.

In learning what is true and right, is it nor equally important that we are clear about what is wrong?  Sometimes it is important to define a thing by what it is not, and people (including ourselves) can be led seriously astray if the difference is not made clear.  As Gordon has pointed out, Paul and Peter thought it was pretty important:

2 Peter 2: 1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

1 Tim 1: 3-7 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

But really how much do our congregations listen to the Benny Hinns and Joel OSteens to make it worthwhile preaching against them? You are far more likely to make an impact on them if they are by not mentioning and disparaging them instead concentrate on preaching the Gospel so they can compare the truths themselves.

I don’t know about this.  Just because cars stay on the road, should we neglect telling our children that they can be hurt by them and to be careful?  No, we show them that cars can be dangerous to people and help them to learn to navigate traffic for themselves. These guys might be in the US, but it’s naive to think that in our age of mass communication Australia is too far away for these teachings to be making an impact on us - as a layperson having this conversation I’m walking evidence!

Fair enough, we need to give these guys a fair go and listen to what they have to say, rather than just labelling them or their denomination as bad.  But when we see the gospel being distorted, we need to ring that heresy bell!!

Grace & peace
Nic

Hi Nic,

In comparison to all your preaching against these guys, how much time do you spend praying for them? I think if we are going to follow the Apostles way, we should do it in every way.

Craig, that is a great point, straight to my heart - having only started thinking about Osteen etc in the last couple of months I have definitely spent more time thinking about what shocks me in their arguments than about these guys themselves - time to start praying for them as well!! :)

Straight talking in a loving way is what is needed.

Fom the pulpit and in the stuff you distribute in printed form.

Many people in our churches will have watched the TV series on the Mormons. They may see Joel Osteen and Beny Hinn and their mates on the telly, too.

Nearly everyone is going to be visited by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons.

We need to lovingly declare that their religions are false. We must not pussyfoot and talk vaguely, but tell people what it is we are talking about.

We must tell them that the health and wealth prosperity gospel thing is the complete opposite of what Jesus is saying.

But we must do this in such a way that we don’t give off the idea that we want to live in a little narrow arena where we think that nobody else can be trusted. We must tell them to watch out for us, too and evaluate what we say by the Word of God.

you have probably heared the illustration of how you train people to detect counterfeits.
so it goes:
in the banks you train a person to detect fake money by continually putting before them the real stuff.
so you don’t give as much energy to showing all the dodgy ones as you do to continually showing the good stuff.

In preaching I take it the best way to counter false gospel is preaching the true gospel. Yet there is aa vital place for cultrual crituque and polemical incision that shows what happens when it goes pear shaped.
I don’t think you can ignore the latest best sellers whether it be Dawkins or Osteen or Wilkinson or whatever, but part of meeting your flock where they are at is checking the quality of their food and water - and protecting them from the poison -and helping them to discern the good stuff.

Driscoll made an interesting move, because he actually shoed a clip of Osteen in his church and then critiqued it. Some might argu that he jsut gave Osteen more advertising. But I think he actually deconstructed Osteen well and helped his people see the problems. And it wasn;t a personally attack either - just a very respectful - NO - this is wrong - and here’s why.
a good model maybe?

Gordon,

You are right, it was pretty sloppy for me to have said that. :(

I do see there is a place for it, but it has to be in context. The first time I went to a Mens Katoomba convention, the guest speaker in the middle of his sermon suddenly held up a few books and took off on a tangent about the prosperity Gospel that had absolutely nothing to do with the sermon at all.

Shane, while Mark Driscoll probably did a good job of de-constructing Joel Osteen overall, I don’t think he did a good job on it based on that short clip its self.

Do you preach to your congregation that they are going to have bad relationships at home because Jesus did?

Or are you going to preach that the word of God tells us how to have good relationships at home..

Mark did a good job of preaching that yes we will be persecuted for our faith, which is different to what Osteen was talking about in the short clip that Mark critiqued. If we are going to critique someone and use part of their sermon to to illustrate it like Mark did, we have to make sure that our critique is actually on the what the short clip said, and not on what we know of the person in general.