Joel Osteen is Demonstrably More Ethical Than Albert Mohler
“Moreover, Mohler reins over a religious empire responsible for covering up innumerable crimes against children while the same cannot be said for Osteen’s ministry. For any Christian to be impressed with Mohler’s article and not recognize the steroidal hypocrisy of it, is cognitive dissonance of the highest order.”
I didn’t have any intentions of writing an article this week or in the near future because I am in the middle of clinicals and also preparing for state exams. That is, until I stumbled onto this article written by the insufferable “Dr.” Albert Mohler. Far be it from me to judge someone’s salvation, but also far from me is any assurance that Mohler is going to heaven because he preaches a blatant false gospel. And nothing irks me more than arrogant bloviated stuffed suits spreading a false gospel while pontificating about who is going to hell and not going to hell.
Joel Osteen is the number one whipping boy of evangelicalism. Like Democrats and some Republicans who can’t get over Donald Trump, whether Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, John Piper et al, they just can’t get over Joel Osteen. Why? Well, obviously, he poses a threat. That is, a threat to…
…their power, personal wealth, and their personality cult cash cow which is the evangelical industrial complex because after all, church is an institution and NOTHING more or less. And what is the church institution selling? Salvation. I really don’t even know where to begin to spell out the moral differences between Mohler and Osteen, but we can begin here: at least Osteen isn’t selling salvation. My friends, making bank on the historical sacrifice of Christ is a really bad idea. Ironically, the major complaint about Osteen is just that; he doesn’t emphasize sin. But wait a minute; isn’t that why Christ went to the cross? Why should we emphasize what Christ ended? Is it ended or not? Herein is the rub: if sin is ended; there is nothing to sell. And let me qualify that; we are talking about a sin that still invokes CONDEMNATION rather than a failure to love invoking chastisement from our Father. If it’s a family matter that doesn’t put people in danger of eternal hell, it doesn’t bode well for RMR (reoccurring monthly revenue).
So, what is Osteen selling? Ideas as opposed to salvation. Yes indeed, these two interpret, “It is finished” differently. And what idea is Osteen selling? Here it is: we are not totally depraved. You see, true Christians, ultimately, are not going to buy into the idea that God’s children are totally depraved. Osteen is merely a pushback against that idea in the same way Donald Trump is a pushback against politics as usual. Humanity is a creature of habit, and church had humanity in a habit of tradition based on compelling people to practice church religion by force for 1700 years. America makes the likes of Osteen possible much to the disdain of the Albert Mohler-like tyrants of the world. And by the way, that’s exactly why the church is no friend of Americanism. Mohler often complains loudly about how “anyone with a smart phone can now be a theologian.” That kind of personal freedom, and the ability to get an instant audience along with it grates on Mohler more than we will ever know.
That is, Mohler and every other tyrant wasting oxygen upon the earth. In the same way that a thriving middleclass diminishes the importance of political elitism, individual ability diminishes the power and prestige of religious elitists. As Mohler once said at a conference, pastors are God’s preordained servants to save His people from ignorance. Osteen rejects that concept out of hand, and rather sees pastors as God’s preordained servants to point the way to individual empowerment. Osteen does not claim to have God ordained authority over people; Mohler does. Osteen has to market a product that is a much tougher sell than, “If you don’t obey me and give money as an ‘ordinary means of grace’ you are going to hell for eternity.'”
Protestant evangelicals are the most unethical people in the world while hiding it better than anyone else. Their following was born into condemnation and fear which sucks logic and commonsense out of reality. Mohler relabels and redefines reality at will with little resistance from anyone. Hence, Mohler gets away with labeling Osteen’s gospel as a “prosperity gospel.” And on what premise? Answer: preference. To say that Mohler is the pot calling the kettle black would be a gargantuan understatement. According to Mohler:
As Luce’s article makes clear, Osteen’s message is a gold-mine. Indeed, Osteen’s false gospel works for him financially. As the article makes clear, Osteen received a $13 million advance for just one recent book. Luce details, “With a fortune estimated at $60 million and a mansion listed on Zillow at $10.7 million, Osteen is hardly living like a friar. His suburban Houston home has three elevators, a swimming pool and parking for 20 cars including his $230,000 Ferrari 458 Italia.”
Excuse me, but that’s actually pretty impressive without extorting money from “Christians” through the fear of eternal judgement. To say that the infrastructure of Lakewood Church and Osteen’s property pales in comparison to Southern Seminary alone, not to mention the Southern Baptist Convention’s infrastructure would be another gargantuan understatement. We could also discuss Franklin Graham’s obscene income for running the Samaritan Purse “charity” and the fact that WA Criswell drove a Mercedes gifted to him by church members. In addition, time does not allow for discussing the lifestyles of Mohler’s pastor-buddies like James MacDonald.
Moreover, Mohler reins over a religious empire responsible for covering up innumerable crimes against children while the same cannot be said for Osteen’s ministry. For any Christian to be impressed with Mohler’s article and not recognize the steroidal hypocrisy of it, is cognitive dissonance of the highest order.
But let us not focus too much on residual points. Fact is, Osteen preaches a gospel that is way closer to the truth than Mohler’s gospel.
Luce also cites in his report this quote from another prosperity gospel preacher, Paula White: “Anyone who tells you to deny yourself is Satan.”
Someone needs to tell Paula that Jesus actually said that we should deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow him. If you get Jesus confused with Satan, you have made an eternally fatal error.
Yet, the entire superstructure of prosperity theology peddles false theology from top to bottom. Osteen is quoted by saying, “If you do your part, God will do his. He will promote you. He will give you the increase.”
This amounts to an entire reversal of the gospel of Christ revealed in the Scriptures. Nowhere do the Scriptures tell mankind that if we just do our part, God will do his. Instead, the Bible reveals that God accomplished everything needed for our salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on his cross.
Perhaps the most horrifying statement in the Financial Times articles pertains to Osteen’s exegesis of Jesus’ last words on the cross, “It is finished.” Osteen does not believe that Jesus declared those words as an attestation of his imminent death and the atonement he made. Instead, Osteen preaches that “It is finished,” means, “The guilt is finished. The depression is finished. The low self-esteem is finished. The mediocrity is finished. It is all finished.”
Osteen has replaced the entire biblical message of Christ and what he accomplished at Golgotha. He has exchanged sacrificial atonement for self-absorption. When Christ declared, “It is finished,” he declared far more than the watered-down psychotherapy of Joel Osteen—indeed, Christ declared that salvation had been secured; that death and the devil were defeated. The temple veil was torn in two, declaring the end of the sacrificial system because the perfect sacrifice had been made. Through Jesus Christ, we now have direct access to the Father.
My apology for the lengthy citation, but it is needed to point out and unravel Mohler’s gospel of salvation by obedience to church authority, and why Osteen’s interpretation of “It is finished” is much closer to the truth. Mohler’s gospel, by his own written testimony, is an “atonement.” He states that twice in the above citation. What is an “atonement”? Is our salvation only a covering for sin and not an ending of sin? Mohler’s gospel does not remove eternal condemnation from the word “sin.” One must remain faithful to church to remain “covered” from the condemnation of sin. “There is now NO condemnation for those in Christ” comes with a qualification. And what is that qualification? You must submit yourself to church authority to remain covered. Osteen would not deny for a moment that God may chastise us for acts contrary to love. So, due to the fact that Osteen has a proper definition of sin, his gospel is far closer to the truth. While Mohler et al whine like a cat in heat over Osteen’s lack of sin-speak, they don’t even know what a proper biblical definition of sin is. Key to knowing what the gospel is requires an understanding that sin is not merely covered, but ended.
In another statement revealing Mohler’s misunderstanding of the true gospel, he writes, “Instead, the Bible reveals that God accomplished everything needed for our salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on his cross.” Well, that’s not true, but is certainly indicative of Moher’s denial of the new birth. Christ’s death is only half of what was needed to establish the new birth. If we must both die with Him and also be resurrected with Him in order to be saved, and we do, then obviously it is not solely about Christ’s death. But you see, if we have also been resurrected with Christ to new creaturehood and a different relationship to the law which excludes condemnation, why would we need a “sacramental atonement” exemplified by church? We wouldn’t, which means Albert Mohler would have to get a real job.
This is why they despise Osteen; he draws thousands to hear a message devoid of condemnation. This is a threat to their one-sided authority that is one-sided because of Americanism. Before Americanism, the church had a three-sided authority of eternal condemnation, criminal law, and physical death through the gateway of torture. Attending church was the law of the land and enforced by the civil government. The church had a “session” which was the church court and doled out criminal referrals to the civil magestrate. Be absolutely sure of this: the church longs for a return to those days. This is why church leaders will not debate theology with the commoners who have no right to question them in the first palce…American jurisprudence propagates the supposed false religion of individualism and individual autonomy…and Osteen is a prophet of such. Hence, they despise him along with anyone else who inspires the lowly commoners.
Furthermore, on face value, Osteen is absolutely biblically correct when he states: “’It is finished,’ means, The guilt is finished. The depression is finished. The low self-esteem is finished. The mediocrity is finished. It is all finished.” Mohler doesn’t interpret Christ’s command to pick up a cross and follow Him as a reference to a one-time death only, but rather a lifestyle of death. So, it begs the question, What then, is finished? Mohler suggests that Jesus was speaking of physical death and the devil being “defeated.” This is indicative of Mohler’s slight of hand in the use of words. “Ended” in regard to sin is exchanged for “defeated” in regard to death and devils still running rampant lest one wouldn’t need the church as a sanctuary city.
Mohler’s assessment of the rending of the temple curtain is also errant. “The temple veil was torn in two, declaring the end of the sacrificial system because the perfect sacrifice had been made. Through Jesus Christ, we now have direct access to the Father.” That is, direct access to the Father through the church’s sacramental atonement system…supposedly. So, according to Mohler, God traded one sacramental system for another. Missing is the acknowledgement that only what was holy could enter the Holy of Holies. We have access to the Holy of Holies because we are not just covered by righteousness, we are righteous. And we are the temple of God, specifically the Holy of Holies, and the holy priests of that temple. And if that’s true, and it is, nothing poses a greater threat to Evangelicalism Inc.
You may have noticed that there is one prosperity preacher that is close friends with Joel Osteen that Mohler et al will not lay a paw on: Joseph Prince. Why is that? Prince strongly empasises a narrow gospel message in all of his sermons; and what is that gospel? It is the gospel message of justification by faith to a “T.” In fact, no one articulates justification by faith as well as Joseph Prince. I have written about this here. Whether Mohler, MacArthur, Piper, or others, they do not want to draw any attention towards Prince for this reason. Imagine evangelicals tuning into Prince on cable television and hearing the exact same thing they hear in their Baptist churches every Sunday? Worse yet, Prince’s logical deductions and applications regarding justification by faith, especially applications concerning the law, could raise some very problematic questions for evangelicals.
Far from being an Osteen propagator, I must admit that I take great joy in seeing how Osteen gets under the skin of Albert Mohler while he can’t do a thing about it. Regardless of incessant attacks by Mohler and MacArthur, they are unable to put a dent in Osteen’s following. Mohler’s article also reveals the kind of things Osteen states from the pulpit that aggravates Mohler to no end: “If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If he had a computer, your face would be the screen saver.”
Now, in my book, that’s just good stuff and barely short of pure gold. We live in an awesome time; politically, regardless of what you think of him, it is the gift that keeps giving to watch Trump drive Democrat tyrants completely out of their minds. Likewise, it is a delight to watch Osteen do the same on the religious side. For certain, his smooth Texas drawl and infectious smile must be like rubbing salt in the wound. Blessed be 1776.
And excuse me while I print off a picture of Osteen from the internet and tape it to my refrigerator. After all, he might be next of kin.
paul
How to Debate A Calvinist: Part 1 – By John Immel
The following is part one of a five-part series.
Taken from John Immel’s first session at the 2017 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny
~ Edited by Andy Young
| Click here for part two Click here for part three |
Click here for part four Click here for part five |
“Have you read Calvin’s Institutes today?”
(Watch original session video here)
I must confess, I really struggled this year with what I wanted to talk about. My brain bounced off about a dozen things. I originally thought I was going to dig deeper into the impact of John Locke on American civil government, American religion, the American Revolution. But at the end of the day it didn’t really catch and sustain my attention too much.
Then I thought I might actually discuss death and life and exegete the first four chapters of the book of Genesis. And that didn’t really stick with me very long. And I toyed with a half a dozen other things that just don’t bear mentioning.
Then about two or three months ago I was reading an interaction on Paul’s Passing Thoughts between Paul Dohse and a guy by the name of “GraceWriterRandy”. Now, trust me, this conference is not about GraceWriterRandy, but he is a fantastic anecdote. And so I decided to go ahead and talk about what he did and how that applies generally.
So here is what I noticed. And what so caught my attention was that Randy presumed to set the tone for the entire conversation, and frankly it didn’t matter what part of the conversation. He decided that he was going to dictate the moral and intellectual terms across the board. He reserved the right to make the discussion as narrow or as broad as he wanted.
And then what really bothered me is that everybody accepted the premise. Everybody tended to follow along. So if Randy reframed the conversation, everybody accepted the shift. If Randy argued scripture, everybody started stacking up scriptures. If Randy shifted to moral criticism, everybody started lobbing moral accusations. If Randy challenged a definition, everybody started parsing meanings.
And this is when I realized that I actually had my topic of conversation: Arguments with Calvinists, and trying to unravel the roots of their arguments.
And this is why no one ever gets anywhere in a debate with a Calvinist, because they let the Calvinist shape the direction of the conversation. People rarely ever challenge the Calvinist root assumptions. They let the Calvinist decide that it is their sole right to define all things moral, spiritual, and intellectual. And the foundation of all their arguments is the myth of their [Calvinists’] own authority and their entitlement to dictated force.
So I came up with a brief algebra of historic “Christian” authority:
The Algebra of Authority
Catholic Algebra:
Absolute Truth = Apostolic Authority + Scripture = Error Free Doctrine + Apostolic Succession = Papal Authority = Orthodoxy = Government Force
I want you to notice that the fulcrum of Catholic doctrine is Apostolic Authority PLUS Scripture. Everything else, how they get their doctrinal interpretations, is a direct product of this. Catholics had decided long ago that the reason that “Scripture Alone” got so much traction is because the Catholic church, specifically Papal Authority, decided that it was their job to interpret what it said. But at the end of the day, Orthodoxy is what determines Government Force. In other words, the Pope has the right to compel you to what you think.
Here’s what happened when Protestantism showed up:
Protestant Algebra:
Absolute Truth = Scriptural Authority = Predestined Elders = Error Free Doctrine + Ecclesiastical Force = Orthodoxy
It is very important that you see the relationship here. Predestined Elders inherit the implications of their own Absolute Truth. The function of Predestined Elders in the Protestant world is to compel you to think whatever it is they think they have the right to compel you to think.
This is crucial for you to understand: Authority = Force
Any time somebody says, “I am an authority,” what they are really saying is, “I have the right to force you to do something.” There is nothing elegant about it.
So then how do you debate a Calvinist?
The answer is: You challenge the roots.
This is why I insist, particularly with regard to GraceWriterRandy, no one ever successfully challenges the roots of the assertion.
I have been talking about my web of tyranny now for the last six years. This is my contribution to the world of philosophy. I have identified what I believe are the five fundamental pillars of tyranny. It doesn’t matter what the ultimate end game is, all tyrannies have these five sub-categories or arguments: Dictated Good, Universal Guilt, Abolition of Ambition, Collective Conformity, and Incompetent Masses. The function of all these sub-categories is designed to create “Utopia,” or an alternate reality.
The reason I have rendered this as a web is because it is not specifically linear. In other words, there is not specifically a logical progression of one to the other. Instead there is a dynamic tension between all five, so all of the arguments act in harmony with all of the others to compel you down the path of this alternate reality; the right to determine some other realm of thinking.
What we have never really discussed is how the arguments fit into the web. On occasion over the last few years I have made reference to when an argument sits, but I want to have an overarching view. I want to start subdividing some of the arguments that you will hear. I’ve tried to pick archetypes of the arguments, and we will try to unravel them in later sessions.
If we are going to successfully debate Calvinist, we have to get good at identifying the foundational assumptions, because:
The Gospel According to John Immel, chapter 3:1-3
- All people act logically from their assumptions.
- It does not matter how inconsistent the ideas or insane the rationale. They will act until that logic is fulfilled.
- Therefore, when you see masses of people taking the same destructive actions, if you find the assumptions, you will find the cause.
Frankly, I don’t think we can have any better object lesson of this truth played out in our civil discourse than the logical assumption of a group of people tearing down historic monuments over wars that were fought long ago over offenses that are entirely manufactured. They are in actuality fulfilling a body of logic that produces some action.
Ideas are what drive human action. There is body of ideas, and a fundamental integration of those ideas, that produces your actions in any given day. This integration is called Philosophy.
Disciplines of Philosophy
– Metaphysics
– Epistemology
– Ethics
– Politics
– Aesthetics (art)
The roots are your metaphysical assumptions; whatever you accept about the nature of existence. Once you actually establish your foundation of metaphysical assumptions, you move to epistemology. That is what you believe your mind can understand. Once you identify what your mind can and cannot know, you move on to ethics. These are the moral judgments that you have about your actions; what is good and what is evil. This is how we define how we interact with other people through politics. Once man is able to establish these first four disciplines, he is able to refresh his existence with artistic expression. His art is a reflection of his most deeply held values.
The Orthodoxy Happy Dance
You might begin to talk to a Calvinist by presenting to him what Luther or Calvin said regarding a certain doctrine, and all is well and good until the Calvinist encounters something he doesn’t like. At this point he might respond by saying, “Well, Calvin might have believed that, but it was really the Synod of Dort that came up with this thing called T.U.L.I.P.” At this point they have made the Synod of Dort their authority over Calvin and Luther.
So then you proceed to point out a fallacy in T.U.L.I.P or the Synod of Dort, and now they might cite the Westminster Confession as being the final authority on the matter, rejecting the Synod of Dort. Notice what they are able to do. At any point in the argument that they don’t happen to like a given intellectual conclusion, no matter where it starts, they get to dance around between any given authority that suits them at any particular moment.
Take a look at the video below. This is an excerpt from a breakout session at the 2016 Cross for the Nations Conference in Indianapolis, IN. In this clip, you will hear John Piper make a reference to being committed to “the whole Calvinistic scheme.” Watch then, as Paul Dohse challenges Piper on the matter of election, Piper proceeds to engage in this orthodoxy happy dance.
Did you catch it? What you just saw Piper do is exactly what Calvinist do with impunity. They want the right to pick any given authority as their intellectual forbearers and then disown those intellectual forbearers whenever it suits their purpose. And this is why I call it the Orthodoxy Happy Dance, because orthodoxy at the end is this amorphous concept to which they get to appeal. They make an appeal to something that has no functional definition. At the end of the day, the real root of what they are advocating is their right to their own authority.
Notice that when pressed on the Calvin Institutes, Piper immediately became a Biblicist. What you will eventually realize, if you care to pay attention, is that Calvinists don’t read the Calvin Institutes ever. They read a few select excerpt here and there and then pretend that it is their intellectual pedigree, which they then believe gives them the license to tell you what to think. You peg them down on what they think and then they just jump to some other source of intellectual pedigree.
This sort of intellectual two-step is a direct violation of Aristotle’s Law of Identity; that A is A. Something cannot be “A” and “not A” at the same time. But with Calvinists, orthodoxy can be anything they want it to be. They have no intellectual integrity. They are not committed to anything specific. This is why every time you start debating Calvinists your conversations go nowhere.
Any time you have such a conversation, what you must do is make them responsible for their intellectual pedigree. If at any point they want to reject any point of Calvinism, they are rejecting the roots of orthodoxy. You will see this comment consistently:
“Calvinists don’t believe everything that John Calvin said…The Bible says blah, blah, blah…”
This is a glittering gem of colossal ignorance. It kills me every time I see it. I guarantee if you read anybody’s blog and you take somebody to task you will get a similar response. Pay attention to this. This is the formulation. They will identify themselves as Calvinists, and then they will pretend that they don’t believe what Calvin said. Suddenly they are independent thinkers and Biblicists. This is a gambit to what they believe they control – Biblical interpretation.
The next time you hear this line of logic, what you must say is, “So, you reject John Calvin’s ideas? Excellent! We agree on something. In your copy of Calvin’s Institutes, show me specifically to what you object.” This must be the only answer you will accept, but here is the thing; they will never do it. They will want to play their gambit of Biblical interpretation because they believe they own it.
Your rebuttal when they go back to the Bible, you say, “So, you are really saying that Calvin’s ideas are not in the Bible, right?” If they have to constantly run back to the Bible, then that means they cannot find those ideas in the Calvin’s Institutes. The moment they concede that point, then the next question you ask is, “So that means that Calvin’s teachings are unbiblical, right? That would make him a heretic, right?” Follow this progression of questioning, and don’t let them leave this point! They must commit to what they are advocating.
You want to make sure they can never escape either an acceptance of Calvin or a rejection of Calvin. They must either accept that there is a synonymous relationship between Calvin and the Bible or there is not one. The moment you drive that wedge they are stuck. They use Calvin to establish their historic pedigree – “I have authority because I believe what all these other historic thinkers think.” Yet at the same time they want to turn around and claim intellectual autonomy whenever they choose. So which is it; historical authority or your own intellectual authority? That is the fulcrum of the debate.
If the truth is defined as “authority,” then there is no such thing as “I think…” The assumption is Authority = No Doctrinal Error; that the only way you can hedge against doctrinal error is to have authority. So the reason they argue “authority” is because they insist that they are the ones who get it all right. But the moment you confront them with something that isn’t right, they want to renounce the very thing that gives them authority. This is what you can never let them get away with.
The real argument here is that they have abandoned the right to the Aristotelian Law of Identity. They are constantly trying to say that “A” can be “B” and “B” can be “A”. They want to have a “both/and” reality.
- Both final authority and error-filled humans.
- Both defender of orthodoxy and an individual thinker denouncing Calvin’s doctrine.
- Both herald of God’s mystic revelation and defender of “objective” truth.
- Both lowly unoriginal mind slave and epitome of rational judgment.
- Both champion of God’s hard truth and pitiful victim of undeserved criticism.
The way to defeat Calvinists is to deny them their authority and hammer away at reality. Reality is their enemy. The reason they engage in the Orthodoxy Happy Dance is because the moment they are confronted with the specifics of history they are toast.
But be forewarned:
- Try to rebuff a Calvinist’s right to define all things and they pretend that no is their equal.
- Try to reject a Calvinist’s monopoly on moral virtue, and they snarl that no man is righteous.
- Try to refuse to let a Calvinist define reality, and they resort to force.
…To be continued
| Click here for part two Click here for part three |
Click here for part four Click here for part five |
leave a comment