Robert Schuller?

that is a good site, and it is disturbing that schuller has been a false assurance to many toward their spiritual condition. i cringe when i even hear his name knowing that his liberal teaching and preaching is slow poison. i disrespect those opinions that see schuller as a good pastor.

 

This is what so many tend to overlook. Not preaching the complete truth is the same as preaching falsehood. Just because someone may not preach anything contrary to the gospel does not mean that they are preaching the gospel. The so-called negatives are part of the truth of God.

In Christ's Love

Joe Elliott
http://members.aol.com/joe4jesus/index.htm

 

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Itching ears... tell me exactly what I want to hear. I'm okay, you're okay! We'll all be nice and go to heaven.

Like Joe Elliot said:

Diane

 

JoeElliott sez:

Totally agree; there are going to be many people in hell that have been "loved" there by those who refuse to see God as a God of judgement as well as love!!!

 

Last year one of my classes at CSU was Theology of Christian Worship. Toward the end of the semester the professor had the class watch a tape of a service at the Crystal Cathedral. It was an interesting example of showmanship. The guest singer was Paul Anka singing "I Did It My Way". Now I don't know about you but I kind of have a problem with that particular song for a church service. I mean, doing it my way isn't exactly in keeping with Christianity. The sermon followed along nicely with the song.

Anyway, after watching and responding to the tape we found out that the professor had actually been at the service that tape was recorded at. He was no more impressed than I was.

 

God uses all Christians Leaders for some purpose. He may be a good stepping stone for the new age type lost in Calif and many other TV coverage areas. Once a baby Christian comes through the door of this type of ministry, they should and hopfully grow into the meat portion where they may leave his teachings behind to a large part.

So bad mouthing Robert is probably not the right thing to do. He is clearly not in the fair attack arena as a Benny Hinn scam artist type.

 

True enough, Post-it. He is definetly not in the same arena as Benny Hinn and Robert Tilton, and other like them.

 

It has long been my opinion that many churches today are filled with members who do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ. They are bound for hell without that relationship and little is being done to rectify the situation in many of those churches. I submit that a great number of pulpits are also filled with the unsaved.

I would not be so bold as to accuse Robert Schuller of being lost since only God knows the heart but from what I can see, he certainly isn't doing much to advance the kingdom. All he is advancing is his church empire.

Ron

 

He denies the necessity of recognizing your sinfulness before coming to Christ. Therefore, the gospel he preaches is not true.

He is a false teacher and that teaching is so blasphemous that he is firmly in the area of "non-believer". I know it's harsh, but it's true.

 

Your problem with RS is one in which there is ample reason by valid argument to conclude that he may be correct in the required points that would allow a person the status of "saved".

Therefore, you can't brand him as a false teacher. He is just a teacher from a different Christian denomination.

 

The problem with that is that having self esteem is not contrary to scripture. Scripture constantly tells us that we should see ourselves as God sees us. Jesus tells us that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Jesus also notes the bird of the air, and how God cares for them, and then asks, paraphrasing, "are you not more valuable to your Heavenly Father than they are?". The OT tell is that we are made "a little lower than the angels", and that we are "crowned with glory and honor". And in Genesis, we're told that God created us "very good".

 

I must totally agree with USN and Post-it. He may not be our cup of tea, but that doesn't make his preaching style unbiblical. As having been a visitor to his church several times, I can bear witness to the man preaching on salvation, and on our sinful nature, several times, so I think the comments about him in those regards aren't by themselves a fair representation. To put the man in the same light as Tilton and Hinn is simply incorrect.

 

The problem with that is that having self esteem is not contrary to scripture. Scripture constantly tells us that we should see ourselves as God sees us. Jesus tells us that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Jesus also notes the bird of the air, and how God cares for them, and then asks, paraphrasing, "are you not more valuable to your Heavenly Father than they are?". The OT tell is that we are made "a little lower than the angels", and that we are "crowned with glory and honor". And in Genesis, we're told that God created us "very good". </font>[/QUOTE]Disagree.

Schuller has said hat the greatest hindrance of evangelism is "that idea that man is sinful" (paraphrase). Sorry. That "idea" is central to the gospel. The man is a false teacher of another gospel.

Also, "self-esteem" as he teaches it is NOT biblical. We are to have God-esteem, not self-esteem. We are sinful, what good do we have in ourselves that can be esteemed? The verses you used say nothing about self esteem...nor does God commend us to "see ourselves as God sees us" in terms of self-esteem. I think you are a little off on this. You definitely need to re-examine what Schuller teaches...because it is anti-Biblical.

 

Christ gave us a good barameter to use in these cases.

Look at the fruit the tree produces!!!

I would say, the fruit from RS lifetime of service to Christ has produced a GREAT HARVEST.

So your argument sounds like it's with Christ words, not Robert Schuller's theology.

 

How are you judging that his "ministry" has produced a great harvest??? (Numbers do not equal success)

He preaches CONTRARY TO the gospel!!

How do you not see this??

If he denies that man need to recognize their sinfulness...is that the TRUE gospel? Is anyone saved through that message??

I think you need to be a little more discerning when analyzing these things. The gospel is the truth that we have...we must hold firm to the faith that was delivered once for all to the saints. This "gospel" he preaches is NOT that faith.

 

Not quite. It is man's sinful nature, not his sinfulness, that is a core part of the Gospel. Another core part of the Gospel is that we have worth enough to God to save (which is different than being worthy, btw). How many times have we heard someone say "Why would God want to same me? I'm just a sinner, and not worth saving". This demonstrates a clear lack of healthy self esteem that will send a person to Hell, rather than save them.

A God-centered view of self is all important, and is indeed biblical. What parent would thing of their child as not having worth to them? None. Yet Jesus goes out of his way to get us to relate to God as our Heavenly Father.

We have a sinful nature (different than being sinful). Our sinful nature does not outweigh the fact that God created us "very good", and created us in his image. If one's sinful nature could negate that completely, then that means that sin has greater power than that which God created, and that simply is unbiblical.

Then why does Jesus tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves?

That's you're opinion, but I beg to differ. I've denomstrated biblical support for this, so I don't think I'm "a little off". The topic may not suit you, and, like I said prior, it's not my thing either, but that doesn't make it unbiblical.

 

I've said it before, I've heard the man speak in person, several times, and I bear witness to the fact that this is NOT what he peaches. If it were, I'd be on your side.

Again, the man ain't my cup of tea, but I have a biblical responsibility to make known what I've seen and heard. And what I've seen and heard contradicts the aforementioned statement.

 

I must totally agree with USN and Post-it. He may not be our cup of tea, but that doesn't make his preaching style unbiblical. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, don't get me wrong...I don't like confrontation...but I'm not totally in your camp on this one. I am extremely uncomfortable with RS and his boy, especially after he shared his pulpit with a cleric of differing religion and allowed him to present a message to his congregation. As I said before, that's all it took for me to know that he is one of those preachers that is simply pleasing the itching ears of people, telling them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.

 

He does not deny that man is sinful. I'm not sure where you found this but his theology is based on the fact man is sinful. It is they way that he chooses not to "start" there that most people don't understand. Like Jesus, RS doesn't evangelize by clubbing someone over the head with their sinful nature and hell and brimstone. Rather he reaches out to a person in NEED first and feeds him from the fish and bread. This then opens the door to Christ.

If you can find me a quote where he denies that man has a sinful nature, I will join your point of view, but I found just the opposite when I researched this man. When reading critiques about his theology, I found more holes in the arugments of his critics than I did from his basic teachings.

I think the closest you can get is to claim that his definition of sin is just different than yours. But you won't be able to use scripture to prove his definition is any more wrong than yours.

 

Are we not sinful due to our sinful nature?
You are splitting hairs, but I am still correct. Man is sinful and must recognize that he is a sinner (by nature) in order to be saved. True?

Not what self-esteem is...but go ahead an argue against a straw man. Viewing ourselves as image bearers of God is completely different than self-esteem.

Once again, missing the point. If you read his material you will understand what I am saying. This is not saying we are without value...I never said that...but we must be careful what we value about ourselves and why.

You obviously reject a view of man's depravity. No one said that man's "God-image" is destroyed.

Where? Did I miss the Scripture citations?

fine...I think you are.

Obviously that was a nice little unwarranted jab at me. Resort to that if you will.

You have not proven your point, and your underestimation of man's sinfulness is a little scary to me.

I did not try and show all his errors, I did not spend any time on this. I shared what I have heard from his mouth and read from his books, and you said I am lying (basically). Prove me wrong. Good luck.