Preaching Another Gospel

We are warned often about the dangers of preaching a gospel other than the biblical gospel as given by Jesus and his disciples. And the warnings are very strong indeed. Consider Paul’s fearful words in Galatians 1:8: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

And Paul rebuked the Corinthians for allowing this to occur: “For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough” (2 Cor 11:4).

Thus anyone who claims to be a preacher, a teacher, or a minister of the gospel, must be very careful here indeed. We are to preach the biblical gospel, and that alone. There are to be no additions to it, and no subtractions from it. And of course if it veers from the clear teachings of Jesus, then it is indeed another gospel – a false gospel.

Yet we see this happening all the time. We have mega-preachers from mega-churches giving us gospels which bear no semblance whatsoever to the teachings of Christ and the words of the New Testament. They are another gospel, and in Paul’s words are accursed.

To get to the heart of the gospel, simply ask yourself a few questions:
-Why did Jesus come?
-What was his fundamental purpose for being on planet earth?
-What is the paramount thing that characterises his teaching and ministry?

In the Bible this is made overwhelmingly clear: Christ came to deal with the sin problem. He came to save sinners, and make men right with God. Paul makes this absolutely plain in 1 Timothy 1:15: “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.”

The very name Jesus testifies to this truth. Jesus in Greek, like Joshua in Hebrew, means simply, the Lord saves. The Hebrew Yehoshua means Yahweh is salvation. And that is just what we find in Matthew 1:21 for example: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

So the fundamental purpose of the Incarnation was the salvation of sinners. Thus any gospel which is worth its salt is one that pre-eminently stresses salvation from sin. Indeed, around a hundred times in the gospels alone we find the word sin and related terms used.

If this concept is used so overwhelmingly – and primarily by Jesus himself – then anyone who is proclaiming the Christian gospel must also emphasise these words and concepts. So what about those who refuse to even mention the words sin, repentance and the like?

Well, they are clearly preaching another gospel. One of our prime examples of this is of course Joel Osteen. A recent interview with Osteen confirms this yet again. He once again refuses to preach like Jesus, or focus on the very things Jesus focused on.

Here is a brief segment: “[Interviewer Josh] Zepps read a piece that he liked from Osteen’s new book: ‘It doesn’t matter who likes you or doesn’t like you, all that matters is that God likes you. He accepts you, he approves of you.’ Zepps followed up by asking if that included homosexuals.

“‘Absolutely,’ Osteen insisted, ‘I believe that God breathed life into every person and that every person is made in the image of God and you have accept them as they are, on their journey. I’m not here to preach hate or push people down’.”

Now if this is all Osteen had ever said along these lines, we could all just give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course God has made us all in his image, and of course he loves us. If that were all he meant, then we would not be too concerned.

But of course this is not what he means. All his career he has made a point of underplaying, if not ignoring altogether, the very heart of the gospel, namely the truth that we all are rebellious sinners who have rejected God and are headed to eternal punishment. Osteen simply refuses to discuss this at all.

To leave this out of one’s entire life-long message is to decimate the gospel and in fact preach another gospel. And as mentioned, this is not just a once off, or a case of taking him out of context. Simply go to any of his many books and numerous sermons: it is exactly the same there.

You will almost never hear terms like the following: sin, sinners, transgression, iniquity, evil, unrighteousness, holiness, repentance, the cross, and so on. These utterly basic and constantly repeated terms and themes are almost entirely absent in the gospel according to Joel.

He seems to think he can do a better job of preaching the gospel than even Jesus himself, or the other disciples, and the entire New Testament. He seems to think he can just pick and choose the words of Jesus that he likes, and that his audience will like.

He believes he is called to just say nice things, happy things, and make people feel good about themselves. He does not think we should dwell on anything “negative”. Thus we never seem to hear him say anything about sin, the need for repentance, and warnings of future judgment – all regular and emphatic themes of Jesus and the apostles.

Never mind that he is in effect telling Jesus and the others that they were wrong. Never mind that he has decided to create his own gospel, with none of the “offence” of the gospel remaining. But the gospel is always offensive when preached in its fullness.

The desire not to offend anyone is simply another way of saying this guy is a men-pleaser. He would rather please men than God. That is a very dangerous place to be in. We need to pray that Osteen comes back to the biblical gospel, and renounces his own man-made, saccharine-sweet, humanistic gospel.

Others have also noted this worrying interview and its ramifications: “Dr. Michael Brown, host of the Line of Fire radio broadcast, and author of the forthcoming book Hyper-Grace, told Christian News Network that Osteen ‘offers affirmation for sinners–of all kinds–rather than a call for transformation.’

“‘If he meant that God accepts us the way we are and that’s it–no repentance or changed life in Jesus required, then I categorically disagree,’ he stated. ‘Paul says plainly in 2 Timothy 2:19, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity”.’ Brown said that Osteen missed an opportunity to encourage those who struggle with homosexual temptations that Christ came to free men from the power of sin.

“‘If Joel Osteen had made himself clear and given a full, biblical message, which, sadly, he often fails to do, this could have given hope to those struggling with homosexuality, as well as brought the fear of the Lord to those who believe homosexual practice and Christianity are compatible,’ he stated. ‘[I]t’s so important that we open the door wide to all those who identify as LGBT, telling them Jesus died for them just as He died for the rest of the world and there is new life and new hope in Him.’

“Brown said that he is concerned that there are those like Osteen who preach a humanistic Gospel, which ‘starts with me and tells me what God can do to please me,’ instead of a biblical Gospel, which ‘starts with God and tells me what I can do to please Him.’

“‘While I appreciate Joel Osteen bringing a personable, smiling face to the TV screen in the name of Jesus, I’m deeply grieved by the man-centered, cross-avoiding message that he preaches, and because of his great influence, he is greatly accountable,’ he stated. ‘We should pray for God to get hold of him in a radical way and raise him up to be a preacher of righteousness’.”

Yes quite so. Osteen has the biggest church in North America. And no wonder: he tells people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear. And what they need to hear is that Jesus came to “save his people from their sins”. Any message which refuses to discuss sin and salvation from sin is no gospel message at all, but a damnable “another gospel”.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/joel-osteen-pope_n_4031530.html
christiannews.net/2013/10/04/joel-osteen-god-absolutely-accepts-homosexuals/

[1436 words]

20 Replies to “Preaching Another Gospel”

  1. If you tell people in the modern world something that makes them happy, it is more likely than not that you are condoning them something that is against Biblical teaching and law .

    If you tell people something which makes them feel challenged, it is more likely than not that you are telling them something, either explicitly or implicitly, something consistent with Biblical law.

    Janice Tooh

  2. So often these famous leaders seem to become “of the world” or in some cases, pandering to the world. I pray for you Bill, even though I realise you are a man of great faith and conviction, that you will never succumb to preaching to just to make people happy and/or to get bums on seats.
    I take all of your articles as messages of encouragement, thanks again.

    Johannes Archer

  3. “It doesn’t matter who likes you or doesn’t like you, all that matters is that God likes you. He accepts you, he approves of you.”
    As you say, Bill, this is “another” gospel.

    If as Osteen and other liberal preachers believe this, then of course there is no need for Jesus. No need for the incarnation, for his teaching, suffering or death on the cross, or his resurrection. In effect a Christless Christianity.

    This is a different gospel and an entirely different religion.

    Graham Wood

  4. Didn’t Robert Schuller say that it’s a sin to call someone a sinner yet one of the acts of the Holy Spirit is to convict people of their sins. Does that make the Holy Spirit a sinner in Schuller’s warped pseudo-theology? ‘Sounds quite blasphemous to me!

    Mick Koster

  5. To the best of my knowledge we have no evidence from the New Testament that the love of God was ever used for evangelism and yet today preaching on this is usually the way people try and draw people in.

    We are warned to not cast pearls before swine. Until you are believer you can’t understand God’s love. Indeed many non-believers struggle to believe that the God who created this world could be a God of love.

    Sin, Righteousness and Judgment are all central to the gospel message.

    Moreover it is debatable whether the scripture even says that God loves everyone.

    Indeed one has to be very careful as to what one means by the word ‘love’. The word for love used when referring to the love of God in the New Testament is always the word agape, which refers to taking action to address a need. People certainly don’t need to be encouraged to continue in their sin. People need to be saved from their sin.

    Moreover in arguably the most famous verse of the Bible, John puts agape in the aorist tense (referring to a complete one-off action in the past).

    A slightly altered translation of one I’ve heard would go as follows: “Indeed, in just the same way God the Father acted in love on another occasion, this time for the whole rebellious human race by sacrificing his only natural son so that all who go on trusting and obeying him might never ruin themselves and be ruined beyond recovery but go on having everlasting and abundant life”

    When you consider the use of the continuous present tense and the absence of any mention of repentance or sin, the verse appears to be more of a warning to believers that they can lose their salvation and need to continue in the faith rather than a summary of the gospel message.

    Matt Vinay

  6. Bill, thanks for pointing out that the name Jesus in Greek means “the Lord saves”. I had mistakenly thought that Jesus meant “son of the father” but now see that Bar abbus means “son of the father”. I gather now that Jesus Barabbus was the man whom Pontius Pilate commuted from the death sentence and condemned Jesus Christ to death instead. Apologies for my gross error. I appreciate your tireless efforts to keep us informed.
    Rachel Smith

  7. Its all too true Bill, its another Gospel, it therefore has another spirit, which is not the Holy Spirit, rather an impersonator, a demonic spirit, a spirit of religion, an angel of light. Great to see more of those direct and candid calls coming forth. We need to then also address those who have him speak at their meetings/conferences, what does it say of them?

    Joel Osteen also admitted to stating he believers Mormons as being Christians, you can find that on youtube too. Simple answer, the dude is an apostate, he has divorced himself from the faith. He’s not a little in, he’s all the way out, and again, what of those who invite him to speak?

    Let the announcements come I say, even if it leaves our side looking like a few in comparison, God is with us.

    Hey Osteen would make a great doctor wouldn’t he? He is of course never going to say anything negative and of course only encourage people, after all he is in a professed similar business, people’s health that is, least that’s what he professes. Here’s a scenario:

    Doctor Osteen: How can I help you today?
    Patient: I’ve been having pains in my lower chest
    Doctor Osteen: Hey your’e alright!
    Patient: But the pains?
    Doctor Osteen: I love you!
    Patient: but the pains?
    Doctor Osteen: Your’e going to make this a great day!
    Patient: So don’t worry about the pains?
    Doctor Osteen: I love you, your’e going to have a great day
    Patient: drops dead

    Doctor Osteen: Im not going to let this get me down, after all I helped that person when they were alive.

    pfft

    Dorian Ballard

  8. Jeffrey, thanks for the link. I have sent the link to some other Christians and warned them that is is what happens when the Church gets complacent about morality and focuses only on loving and caring for people’s needs without Biblical law.

    Janice Tooh

  9. Isaiah also pretty much has the same meaning as Joshua and Jesus.

    Joshua – leader of Israel who led them under God’s direction as they entered the promised land
    Isaiah – has some great Messianic prophecies but sadly chapter divisions come in bad places. Isaiah 53 starts in the middle of a song
    Joshua – high priest after return from exile
    Jesus – Messiah

    In the lives of all of the above you can see that God saves.

    Jesus rode into Jerusalem as a man of peace, on a donkey, but the people shouted hosanna (liberate us now!). Instead of turning to attack the Roman fortress he turned the opposite way and went to the temple (his Father’s house) which had been turned into a den of thieves and he whipped them out of a temple. Days later the people chose a terrorist and freedom fighter Jesus Barabbas (Jesus son of the father) who would fight for them rather than Jesus who is son of God the Father.

    Matt Vinay

  10. As just one other perspective, I suggest to consider the whole body of Christ… the church. Not all people preach all things folks. In fact, I challenge anyone to identify any preacher or teacher who has the whole thing, the whole gospel stitched and preaching it. That includes you Bill, and I love your messages, but it is not the ONLY aspect of the gospel.

    That’s why it takes the whole body of Christ, collectively a rounded picture of the kingdom of God can be seen, put pick any one person out and yes, perspective can be seen.

    Plenty of people may well need to hear the gospel according to Olsteen as many may need to hear it from Bell and many from Muehlenberg. There are different needs and different saints to meet those needs.

    People are in church and saved, because of Olsteen, Period. That’s better than not.

    I realise I may be condemned for posting, I hope not, just trying to put some perspective that I see. And that is from the perspective that Gods primary message is NOT condemnation, but IS in fact love.. and perhaps love even bigger than our own perspectives, full of flaws as they may be…

    Blessings.
    Stephen Dale

  11. Thanks Stephen

    So do you think Paul was lying when he said in Acts 20:27, “I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God”? Of course we can proclaim the whole gospel: balanced and in truth. Sure it will never be perfect or utterly complete, but that is what we are commanded to strive for nonetheless.

    Is God bigger than any one pastor, church, or denomination? Sure. But by your reasoning, we should support cults and heretics because they bring “perspective” and “balance” into the church. Sorry, not buying it for a minute. If Joel were even half-way balanced, that would be one thing. But he is 95% New Age mumbo jumbo, and 5% gospel. That is not balance and that is not providing perspective. Even the full-blown cults manage to get at least a 50-50 mix of truth and error.

    The reason Joel is loved by people like Oprah – the biggest promoter of the New Age movement in the world – and regularly appears on her show is because he is teaching exactly the same thing as she is. There is no difference. Oprah is leading millions of people to hell, as is Osteen. That a minority of people in his church may be real believers has nothing to do with him and his gospel of self.

    Indeed, I suggest you to take the test I offer in the following article. Before you read on to see the answer there, tell me which quotes are from a leading New Ager and which are from Joel: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/05/18/will-the-real-gospel-please-stand-up/

    Or try this for a test: read any of Osteen’s books, and then read the four gospels. I wager you will not even find a 5% overlap in what the two are proclaiming. That is not bringing in perspective. That is ripping out the very heart of the gospel and replacing it with a humanistic me-centred false gospel.

    As I tried to make quite clear in this article, the gospel of Jesus is light-years apart from the gospel according to Joel. You simply will not hear the core biblical truths that we are all sinners separated from God and under his just wrath, headed for a lost eternity, and are in need of repentance and turning away from self (not to self) if we are to get right with God.

    The me-first gospel of Joel is exactly what selfish, self-centred, materialistic and affluent middle class Westerners want to hear, which is why people flock to his church. But most there are likely heading to a lost eternity as a result. The truth is, Osteen needs to repent and start preaching the gospel according to Jesus, or get out of the business altogether.

    When people like Bell and Osteen are teaching crystal clear error, if not heresy, then no, people do not need to hear them at all. By your reckoning, Paul was quite wrong to tell the Judaisers they were preaching another gospel and were therefore accursed. It seems you would rather have urged Paul to allow the Galatians to have a fuller “perspective”. I somehow don’t think Paul would buy that idea for a moment.

    And I do not accept as biblical the notion that love is the trumping consideration of who God is and what his attributes are all about. He is love to be sure, but he is also holy, just, pure, righteous, and so on. Trying to set one of his attributes over against all the others is not biblical and not helpful.

    And God’s love and grace only make sense when we first understand that we all stand condemned and under the just wrath of God. There is no salvation until we realise we are condemned and lost sinners. And you will never learn that if you rely only on Joel.

    Oh, and BTW, I don’t for a moment want anyone to accept the gospel according to Muehlenberg. That is the last thing anyone needs. What they need and need alone is the gospel according to Jesus and the Bible. If I can in a very small manner help point people in that direction I will be content.

    But thanks for your thoughts. Bless ya.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  12. Thanks again Bill, another great article against modern day heresy. Go the lone voices in the wilderness. John the Baptist was weird, and he was one, but he was right. God Bless you in your work.

    Linda Trevenen

  13. When I read stuff like this Bill, about pastor people-pleasers, I really fear for folk that sit under that kind of teaching.
    Lets look at Ephesians 4:16: “When he ascended on high He led captives in His train and gave gifts to men”.
    Now, we as Christians should hope to be on board the God train as fully paid up and heaven bound christians. But let’s understand this, that God’s in the drivers seat. He’s also the conductor and the fireman – we’re just the invited guests on board His train. At any point along the way He can put us of the train for disobedience. The good news however is, if we are 100% for God we will be His gift (blessing) to men.

    Michael Mercier

  14. Always so refreshing to hear the false gospel challenged!

    We met many on the streets who have a “jesus/whatever else suits them” faith, who get offended when we show them Jesus is the only way… that he requires their whole life… its crazy how many haven’t even heard the simple gospel message! And many of these have attended churches and Christian schools.

    Praise God for people willing to stand up and not be people pleasers! But who are more interested in pleasing God instead!

    Elisha McKenzie

  15. Hi BIll,

    Thanks for your detailed response. I appreciate you taking the time. I’d also like to respond.

    No I’m not saying Paul was lying at all. I’m also not saying that Olsteen is the greatest preacher either, or to support cults lol.

    Paul told the whole truth according to his understanding, or the whole of God’s will for him. Pauls ministry isn’t necessarily the same as for everyone else tho. His context is as you pointed out in your message above, to particular people at a particular time. Yes, these can be extrapolated to us, but interpretation is still and always required. Pauls spirituality was not the same as Johns, and it wasn’t the same as Jesus’ either for example and that’s quite clear in reading their accounts.

    The essence of their words are all true yes, and relevant for us, but the forms vary as they do today as well. Paul said he became all things for all people for the sake of the gospel.

    The gospel is the good news Bill, it’s not fire and brimstone. And that was Jesus message, he spoke it repeatedly as the purpose he came.

    I suggest putting the Pauline letters to one side for a while and re-read the gospels. Jesus said he had not come to condemn the world, but he came to bring life and that more abundantly, He spoke his purpose as the Kingdom of God. Sin and repentance are a part of that, but only the starting point, not the main course. To focus on sin overwhelmingly leads to condemnation and actually is not the gospel taught,

    Anyway, I know you can eat me alive in a debate like this, but still, I know McKnight talks of the Jesus Creed as loving God and loving People. Olsteen preaches this. So does Bell. Sure, other parts may not be the theology that you like, but surely that part is still good news.

    They may not preach all things that resonate with you, but there are plenty of issues (which you also speak about) that are perhaps more pressing than speaking ill of people out their dedicated to Gods Kingdom.

    Mother Teresa, as far as I know, never condemned the people she ministered to, she simply met the peoples needs. Do you condemn her because she didn’t convict people of their sins?

    She played one part of the kingdom of God, and that’s a different role to what you are preaching in your messages. All part of the body of Christ as far as I can see.

    I’d like to comment on your test as well. I read it and get the point you are making. My sense is that it’s perhaps a little unfair tho. Any two opposed things can have things picked out that can’t be distinguished cant they?

    Like, which one of these is Christian and which Buddhist?
    – The one that prays,
    – The one that uses incense
    – The one that rings bells
    – The one that honours saints
    – The one that recites scriptures
    etc etc…

    Of course, it’s both of them. So, I hope you see the point I’m making in that.

    Incidently, that words have power… isn’t that pretty Christian? I know my Church, that you visit and talk at, preaches this (Bridge Church).

    Anyway, I do enjoy your articles, just think you may have gone a little too one perspective on this one 🙂 And I’m sure there are still people who need to hear it… so God bless.

    Stephen Dale

  16. 2 years ago, I was part of an open air concert in our town and we had a banner with Amos 5:6 “Turn to God and live”. A Christian friend of mine shared with me that she felt that was “offensive”. I think, she meant that she could imagine non Christians finding it offensive. As you said Bill, the gospel is an offence but rather than pandering to that, we need to get on our knees and repent for even being offended at that, for it is nothing but the truth and God is trying to set us free, if we would only humbly accept it and thank Him for what He has done.
    As an earlier comment said If there is no sin to be cleansed, why did Jesus bother to come to this earth and die a horrible undeserved death?
    I can only imagine how God grieves over such lies being spoken in His name and hate them at the same time.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  17. Thanks again Stephen

    The point of course is not to eat anyone alive as you put it, but to encourage everyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ to think very carefully and very biblically. We are admonished over and over again in Scripture to do this very thing. And respectfully, you seem to have some rather fuzzy and unbiblical thinking here and there that I would like to reply to if I may.

    As to Paul and his message: of course it was not just “according to his understanding”. He was inspired by God to write what he did. I hope you are not buying into the usual humanistic baloney about Scripture being just human words only, instead of divinely inspired truth. And no his spirituality was not different from Jesus, etc. They were all on the same page, and they all gave us one consistent gospel message. You may not be aware of this, but it is common practice for theological liberals and atheist critics to argue that there is a major disconnect between what Jesus and Paul thought and taught. Sorry, there is nothing of the sort. Try reading the books by Tom Wright or Peter Barnes on this issue for example.

    So I most certainly will not put aside the letters of Paul as you rather incredibly propose. This kind of picking and choosing of Scripture is popular with the so-called Red Letter Christians, but is equivalent to the ancient heresy of Marcionitism. See more here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/02/27/modern-day-marcionism/

    And again it seems you are really saying Jesus did not know what the gospel was with your unhelpful “it’s not fire and brimstone”. Who spoke more about hell and judgment to come than anyone else in the entire Bible? Jesus of course. Simply start reading the gospels again, instead of relying on the latest emergents or other trendy revisionists. You cannot claim to know what Jesus taught without seeing his overwhelming emphasis on sin, repentance, the wrath of God, and final judgment. It permeates his teachings from start to finish. If you don’t like that message that is up to you, but you cannot pretend it is not found all over the New Testament, indeed over the whole Bible. But see here for more on this: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/05/27/on-divine-love-and-wrath/

    As I said, it is as impossible as it is dishonest to disconnect the bad news of the gospel from the good news. The later presupposes and is based on the former. Indeed, we have no biblical gospel at all if we think we can just gut the entire Bible of its core truth that we are sinners under the wrath of God and in dire straits. Francis Schaeffer was absolutely right to say, “If I had one hour with every man, I would spend the first 45 minutes talking to them about God’s law, and the last 15 minutes talking about His great salvation.” See more here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2013/03/06/objects-of-wrath/

    And no, the ‘Jesus Creed’is not a general sentimental notion of love, however vaguely and loosely defined. The gospel is stated quite clearly in passages like 1 Tim. 1:15: “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” And to love God is to keep his commandments, as Jesus said repeatedly. But see here for more on this: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2011/06/18/loving-god-and-keeping-the-commandments/

    Moreover, cherry picking Scriptures about what Jesus said is not all that helpful. One can as easily pick other texts, such as this: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). Why is it you seem to want to take some of the words of Jesus but not all of them? Again, it is the whole counsel of God which we must proclaim, not just those bits to our liking.

    Sorry, but Bell and Osteen basically preach what people want to hear, not the biblical gospel. But I have written about them often elsewhere: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/09/07/real-gospel-vs-fake-gospel/
    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2011/04/15/a-review-of-love-wins-by-rob-bell/
    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2011/04/17/jesus-or-the-emergents/

    And there are no more pressing issues than making sure people are saved from their sins and made new persons in Christ. We have to agree with Jesus here: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Matt 16:26). Without getting into right relationship with God through Christ, everything else matters little.

    And sorry, but Mother Teresa of course both spoke of Christ as well as met human need – just what all of us are called to do. I realise that the emergents love to make these false dichotomies, but Scripture insists that we hold onto both truths: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2008/06/27/on-emergents-and-false-dilemmas/

    And no, your general comparison with religious people has nothing to do with my specific comparison between Osteen and the New Agers. They are preaching nearly identical gospels. There is nothing identical about Christianity and Buddhism, etc.

    And no, words don’t have power. God has power, and when we speak his truth in his way by means of his Spirit, things can happen. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the New Age foolishness of creative visualisation and creating your own reality which Osteen and the Word of Faith camps like to peddle. But see more on this here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/09/29/problems-with-the-positive-confession-movement/

    So as I say, I must confess I find too much unbiblical and trendy thinking oozing out of your remarks. Our primary job is to make sure our thoughts and teachings always line up clearly with the Word of God. Secondary sources, be they the emergent church folk or Positive Confessionists can add some insights (as well as some real errors) but everything must be tested according to Scripture, just as we are commanded to do, and given a great example of in Acts 17:11.

    But thanks again for writing in. To your credit you are thinking through these important matters, which is more than most believers do sadly. And sorry for all the links; but it would be silly and time-wasting of me to rehash all that again here. Bless you.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  18. Keep it up Bill, you are needed much in this age. My bible study is tackling these issue right now and I believe so many in the Church today have believed a false gospel or in half a Christ. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Light if the world. Wouldn’t it be awesome if Olsteen repented and turned from his gospel to the true gospel that Jesus Christ came to set men free.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: