« Annihilationism vs. Universalism: Acceptable Error or Condemnable Heresy? by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Note to Southern Baptist Educators: Take a Clue on How to Deal with "Outing Heresy" from Dr. Ben Witherington by Peter Lumpkins »

Mar 02, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20147e2f2c0cc970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Breaking News! Steven Furtick a Threat to Evangelicals! by Peter Lumpkins:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Scott Shaffer

Peter,

I know you think the point is obvious, but this slow Texan may have missed it!

Are you saying that using the same criteria the YRR crowd used to castigate Bell, they should have done the same with Furtick? I guess another way of saying it would be, they didn't condemn Furtick based on his video, so why did they single out Bell?

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've thought Bell has taught heresy (and I define heresy as doctrine contrary to orthodox Christianity) for some time, yet I withhold commenting on his supposed universalism until I read his new book.

D.R. Randle

Peter,

This goes to show your lack of serious logical thought (talk about a "knee-jerk reaction"). Furtick's video here is not a promotional piece for a book on a significant doctrinal position and you've posted it completely out of context (by the way, what is the context of this video - how about a link to the original video?), whereas, the video posted by Bell was specifically promoting his book, which deals with a doctrinal concept about Hell. Unlike Furtick here, Bell wasn't reacting to criticism; he was promoting a doctrinal position - one that (in combination of previous comments, books, sermons, and breadth of teaching) looks to espouse universalism. Furtick isn't attempting to espouse any doctrinal position. Therefore, once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that you don't see that reveals a serious flaw in your logical abilities. You just keep getting further and further out there Peter. Irrelevancy is the next stop on this crazy train.

peter

Scott,

Thanks. Hope you are well. No I'm not saying they should have done anything with Furtick. What I am suggesting is, what I did to Furtick is comparable to what they did to Rob Bell--knee-jerk nonsense.

And, I've made a similar estimation on Bell based on other criteria. But what I have *not* done--nor happily you, Scott--is judged him a heretic based upon engaging a video & book-cover, and done so publicly and using widespread media to do so. It's estimated JT got 1/4 million hits on that article.

Even so, nothing whatsoever may be cited--nor has it been cited--which necessitated their premature dissing of Bell. Nothing. Nothing was riding on whether Bell was "exposed" this week or next month when they could have legitimately buzzed his theological head with book in hand.

I've had a long exchange with a TGC advocate whom I told the principle for which I am arguing is a principle that very well could be applicable to him very soon as his book gets closer to publication. Neither he nor any one of the TGC bloggers would want done to them what they did to Bell--a non-supporter/critic not consider their actual work, but nonetheless diss their work before they even read their work, and that a month before the work released. What is screwy about this is, I'm having to defend such a basic moral principle here--do unto others as...

Thanks again brother.
With that, I am...
Peter

peter

D.R.

Oh, brother. I have taken Furtick "out of context"? Do you think?

And this worn out "apples and oranges" is really devastating to my "logical abilities' alright. O.K.

More seriously, I suggest you read Scott's comment and my response and your questions should disappear, D.R.

I need a drink.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. FTR, of coke zero

Mary

Peter, I'm not as high thinkin' as some who post here but looking at the treatement of Bell and looking at a recent post at SBC Voices about how people are treating TD Jakes and company unfairly would that be what might be considered irony? It's all about who ya know it seems like to me.

Christiane

Peter, I clicked on the picture of Furtick, but I didn't get anything, so I found this.
Is THIS the speech you are talking about?
Sorry for confusion:

http://www.stevenfurtick.com/

Eric Opsahl

I will take my hat off to you for letting people post who have strong negative reactions to your post.

peter lumpkins

Mary,

Very interesting comment. I saw but have not read Voices' post reconsidering Jakes. While Littleton at times makes some sense I'm gonna thank about it a spell...

Christiane,

Hello. I'm not sure I understand. Perhaps you're saying the video does not work on your computer?? If you watched the video on Furtick's site, it's the same one--except I placed ridiculous but reasonable (i.e. valid) interpretative remarks throughout the video. My point was/is simple--I can mold Furtick's message into my image very easily and make premature conclusions, precisely what TGC bloggers did by taking a video of Rob Bell and exploiting the opportunity to label him heretic apart from even considering the book.

With that, I am...
Peter

R.L Adler

"but looking at the treatement of Bell and looking at a recent post at SBC Voices about how people are treating TD Jakes"


winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!!

peter lumpkins

Eric,

Thanks.  I honestly try to allow all comments.  In fact, of the 13k comments logged here, only a minuscule number have been rejected by anyone (other than actual spam).

I have to say, dealing with the personal insults by the same characters gets pretty testy.  That's why I encouraged D.R. to look at Scott's comment above.  Scott and I frequently disagree, the reason being I post a lot of stuff on the Calvinist/non-Calvinist.  And, since Scott is a Calvinist, the obvious conclusion is, we will *not* agree.

While both are Calvinists, one substantial difference between Scott and D.R. can be seen by the two comments logged by them on this thread.  Scott is consistently respectful, and states his view and where we disagree. D.R. comes inevitably with a six-shooter in both hands, cocked and ready to fire. He seeks to make me the loony fool he knows me to be rather than states a substantial point to engage my post.

And, Scott is not the only one who, more times than not, disagrees with me but nonetheless doesn't fan pistols at my heart instead of my ideas--Darby, Ian, Tony (all of whom are Calvinists by the way) and many others could be cited. But D.R., while a very intelligent, educated guy makes it personal not about disagreement over perspectives, ideas, etc.

Though I hardly wanted to do it, I compared D.R. with Debbie Kaufman on another thread. While there are some significant differences (D.R. is theologically educated, Debbie is only internet educated-theologically speaking), their engagement on this blog is strikingly similar. Both log on to make a personally-oriented statement directed to personality.  In this sense, Debbie is no respecter of persons.  She would insult the Apostle Paul if he disagreed with her. 

And, that’s the reason I flagged her IP.  She is no longer welcome here.  Two accomplished scholars logged on SBCTomorrow and what does Debbie do?  Rather than attempt to learn from them she hurls insults at them! Think about this—both of the scholars are Reformed…they are Calvinists. Like Debbie! So, she’s gone for good so far as I am concerned.  Insulting me is one thing but continually badgering others is just more than I can take. 

That said, the reason D.R. is here and Debbie not (even though both perpetually insult and make issues personal with authors) is, D.R. has not made personal arguments toward anyone thus far but me. In fact, I can state with full confidence—I cannot recall D.R. insulting any commenter not only here but elsewhere except me. What a hoot!  I’m sure D.R. does not see this.  He thinks he deals with my posts and comments as he does everybody else.  Ya gotta laugh at that!

Whatever the case, people get a lot more freedom to spew here than perhaps some other places. But as host I simply am not going to allow them to puke on other guests. This is not their own house, you know.

With that, I am…

Peter

P.S. Sorry for going on so long…

The Seeking Disciple

I have a friend of mine who recently planted a church and he absolutely loves this guy. The reality is that we can point out his bad theology, his lack of expository preaching, his postmodernism, etc. but to guys like my friend, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is he needs a paycheck at the end of the day to feed his family and so pragmatism drives him. Theology doesn't. Who cares about theology when following this guy or Rob Bell or any other postmodern will grow a church? That is what matters most to my friend.

Otherwise, I agree with you Peter.

peter lumpkins

Well, said, TSD

With that, I am...
Peter

R.L. Adler

precisely what TGC bloggers did by taking a video of Rob Bell and exploiting the opportunity to label him heretic apart from even considering the book.


the bottom line, imho; they just dont like the guy (Bell).

while Furtick is pretty similar in model and methodology as Bell, he has something going for him; he's hip, cool, machismo jock guy. Bell is a geek.

a very opinionated nerd who doesnt care about the prom king christian celebrities.

this is a microcosm of celebrity america, it's a perpetual highschool.

peter lumpkins

R.L.

You! You! You! have the quote of the week on this:

it's a perpetual highschool

With that, I am...
Peter

Eric Opsahl

I wish for a clear answer on how to correct errant pastors. In a sense, I do agree with Furtick's point. One of which is not nitpicking on every syllable that is spoken. If he is correct that that's the habit of "watch bloggers", it's clearly wrong. But the Church does need to be warned of folks like Bell or Osteen etc.

peter lumpkins

Eric,

I'm unsure there is a clear answer since varying contexts call for varying methods to proceed. Perhaps if you teased it out a bit more...

Interestingly, while you somewhat agree with Furtick, I cannot tell with what I am supposed to agree or disagree--he's simply too vague to tell. I think he's invented an entirely new medium of rhetoric--radical abstract exhortation--RAE.

For my part, it's difficult to accept that communication experts would, if consulted, grade this performance above a C-...tops! It's tortuous to watch as frequently his EYES get BIG...projects an almost creepy feel, at least to me.

Even so, apparently there's a large group of young people who'd highly disagree with the way I've described his communication style.

Wish I could assist more...

With that, I am...
Peter

R.L. Adler

Eric,


I keep hearing watch out for "Osteen, Bell... " and I don't understand where its coming from.

Osteen and Bell don't happen to happen to wear HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE on their sleeve along with IM NOTHIN BUT A WRETCH pinned on their shirt. That doesnt make them any kind of wolves in sheeps clothing.

Somehow Bell got lumped with Emergent Village (Bell is "Emerging", theres a difference) and Osteen got lumped with "Health and Wealth" (in the TBN vein). But if anyone has read Osteens books or watched his sermons objectively he has never taught that.

D.R. Randle

Peter,

If I had the time and the energy, I would link to plenty of comments made on your blog and elsewhere by you showing that you have no place to talk about people attacking you personally. Uh...you and your obsession with James White (and in all fairness I should say "his obsession with you" as well) should be enough. Again another example of "the pot calling the kettle black."

Mostly what I log on to attack what I consider to be poor logic. If that is a personal attack, so be it - it doesn't make the logic any less poor in my opinion. What's interesting is that it seems in this case, you've failed to be able to address it - thus you've turned to attacking me and my character and comparing me with Debbie Kaufman.

***Sidenote***
Since you want to point out my blind spots, allow me to point out one of yours - whenever you can't defend your position, you resort to dismissing it by either attacking the person, using sarcasm in an attempt to embarrass the person making the legitimate criticism, or claim your previous comments addressed it (even if they didn't). So my suggestion is that we actually address the topic at hand, which is: "Is this a legitimate criticism of the TCG posts on Rob Bell?" I believe I've clearly shown that it's not. I'd like to see you actually defend your post against my criticisms instead of just telling everyone why I'm such a lousy person in your opinion.
***End Sidenote***

Given that, let me point out that not one time in your entire rant above did you address the fact that you have no context for the video (unlike the Bell video), that the video isn't about a doctrinal position Furtick is promoting (again unlike Bell), or that unlike the TCG guys with Bell's potential universalism there is no prior statements or positions that would lead you to conclude the things you did about Furtick. Again the TGC folks know Bell, have interacted with him personally, and did have excerpts from the books, along with a video Bell made promoting the book (facts you failed to disclose, then dismissed as inconsequential). All those things point to him likely taking a universalist position. Nothing at all points to the odd, irrational, and even as you said "ridiculous" conclusions you made about Furtick. So, yes Peter, it is "apples and oranges" whether you care to admit it or not.

Eric Opsahl

Mr. Adler

You wrote: " I keep hearing watch out for "Osteen, Bell... " and I don't understand where its coming from."

This is off topic for Mr. Lumpkin's Blog.

You can make a quick search on utube for Osteen interviews on Larry King Live. After watching a couple, you will understand why all the critics of Osteen.

Better to hear it straight from his mouth rather than my paraphrasing.


R.L. Adler

D.R.,

I want to help you connect some of the dots. Let's let Taylor address your claims:


You: "Again the TGC folks know Bell, have interacted with him personally, and did have excerpts from the books, along with a video Bell made promoting the book (facts you failed to disclose, then dismissed as inconsequential)."


Justin Taylor: "I have not read all of Bell’s book, though I have read some chapters that were sent to me... [EVEN SO] I think that the publisher’s description combined with Bell’s video is sufficient evidence to suggest that he thinks hell is empty and that God’s love (which desires all to be saved) is always successful*." (even so mine)

---

You : "All those things point to him likely taking a universalist position"


Justin Taylor : "I should have been more careful in my original post not to imply that Bell is definitely a universalist.
He may believe that some people go out of existence and are not thereby saved ."


The first part of that last quote JT is speculating about universalsim and then he wonders; maybe it's annihilationism? you've mentioned that those two doctrines are quite distinct, and the ramifications of believing in either of them are very different.

It doesn't matter what Bell was talking about (anything from doctrine to breeding llamas), JT is jumping to conclusions. Just like Peter was with Furtick.


*Conclusion: Yes, Justin Taylor (and TGC), the video would suggest universalism to a mind swimming in determinism.

R.L. Adler

Eric,

"You can make a quick search on utube for Osteen interviews on Larry King Live."


I have and its not enough to condemn him. Osteen clarified his position(s) on Larry King btw.

I challenge you; Read his books, listen to his sermons. He is no heretic and is nothing to be afraid of.

Again, just because he is a "neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy" that doesnt make him a heretic.

Eric Opsahl

Mr. Adler,
I'll end my critique with the following (this isnt a blog about Osteen). I don't have a crusade against Osteen, I simply used him as an example because he has said so, so much in public that Biblically disqualify him from being a pastor.

I'm not using the term condemn, nor do I feel condemnation. I do feel sorry for folks like him. I do have concern for folks like him because God said they will be held to account. Pastors have a huge responsibility to rightly divide Gods word. I give more credit to a Godly "country" preacher with little training who is being lead by the spirit than I do 100 "Doctors" .

I appreciate your challenge to read his books before forming my opinion. I would take you up on that if it were not for the countless interviews he has done (see utube). I don't know that I would call him a heretic (need to think on that), nor do I fear him. I do fear for those under his charge.

If you truly have listened to his interviews on Larry king and heard his answers to direct questions on salvation, etc. and still see no problems. In that Osteen has over and over again failed to give the Gospel call, I think you need to have a more Biblically centered critique.

I know that last sentence could be seen as fighting words. please don't take offence. Mr. Lumpkin's can scold me if needed.

The comments to this entry are closed.