D James Kennedy wastes thousands of dollars

I just noticed an article about Judge Roy Moore and D. James Kennedy. Apparently, Roy spoke at a conference hosted by Coral Ridge.

The article states that Kennedy's church has raised $575,000.00 for Moore's cause.

Now, what is Moore's cause? Is it the cause of Christ? No. Is it a cause to make lost people moral? Yes. You see, Moore believes that a society that is moral is pleasing to God. What he doesn't understand is that all lost people are under the wrath of God and cannot earn any favor with him.

It does not surprise me to see that he has turned to the Presbyterians for help. Seeing how they are amillenial, they believe that morality can be legislated (despite the fact that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked) and that things will get better (despite the fact that Paul said they would get worse).

Kennedy is no preacher. He is a politician.

Moore is no defender of the faith. He is just another moralist.

DD,

The fact that D James Kennedy is supporting Judge Roy Moore has nothing to do with amillenialism--it's all about Covenant theology. Failing to separate the old and New covenants, Covenanters still want to be under the Law of Moses (in most ways anyway). Kennedy is basically a Reconstructionist.

Amil and New Covenant,

Tim

Playing the devil's advocate for a moment. Could you help explain why a church, raising money for social causes, is a problem to you?

Some years ago, our church raised money to help with voter registration and civil rights.

There IS a social aspect of the ministry. Seeing people who are poor or disenfranchised or left amorally adrift - and helping them, is a very real part of our Isaiah 58 ministry.

As real as a box of food for the poor, helping their bodies. Here we are helping their minds. HOPEFULLY they will get the Gospel and help their souls!

Dr. Bob, it isn't social causes that bother me. I believe the church has an obligation to deal with many social issues.

My problem is with this one in particular. The 10 commandments couldn't even change the hearts of the people God chose. It didn't keep them from judgment.

Yet people today try and cram them down our throats.

I am part of the New Covenant of life.

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Could you help explain why a church, raising money for social causes, is a problem to you?

Click to expand...

I can ... Because the NT never gives the church any such mission. Being a NT church, we limit our purposes to what the NT said a NT church is and does. The social cause we raise money brings the only true solution to social problems -- Missions. When men and women come under the life dominating authority of Jesus Christ, the social problems solve themselves.

I'm not even sure that Dr. Kennedy is amilliniel. Last I heard from a friend who attends his church (my wife also went to his high school), Dr. Kennedy is post-millieniel. It is really the post-millieniels who push such things because they believe that that Christian influence will eventually dominate the whole world, and while not EVERYONE will be saved, morality and justice will reign in the majority.

This mixed with covenant theology as Tim demonstrated, usually leads to intense government intervention. I find it interesting though that a lot of dispensational or fundlementalists are also activiley involved in politics (Fallwell, my mother-in-law) though their theology saws it is hopeless in the long run.

Amillieniel though, is a mixed back, with some believing things will get better and better (as Daniel David mentioned; normally called optimistic Amill) and some believing things will get worse and worse (called pessimistic amill). The difference between optimisitc amill and post-mill is to fine a line really for me to see.

I side with Daniel David here that this is a waste of money as even if the Ten Commandments are placed in the building (which I would certainly like to see), it has no power to change the heart so people will have the ability to obey them. I am not opposed 100% from social issues but if it needs be a social issue (over spreading the gospel) and would much favor the poor. Since I feel the money isn't doing much in its present use I think I will suggest another alternative for the good Dr. Kennedy . . . give it to me. I know a few in need and hey . . . I COULD BUY A HUGE HOUSE!!!

Pete,

I pretty much agree with your comments above. But I take issue that a so-called pessimistic amil believes that the world must continue to get worse and worse. Continuing tribulation and trials of our faith--yes, but possible times of revival and spiritual renewal as well.

On the other hand, Post-mils are optimistic by definition as Dispensationalists are pessimistic by definition.

As you (and DD) noted, the main problem with reconstructionists like D James K is their reliance on political action to affect change in society.

Tim

But I take issue that a so-called pessimistic amil believes that the world must continue to get worse and worse. Continuing tribulation and trials of our faith--yes, but possible times of revival and spiritual renewal as well.

Click to expand...

Sounds good.

Post-mils are optimistic by definition as Dispensationalists are pessimistic by definition. [/QB]

Click to expand...

I am premill and optimistic! I am optimistically looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ! (Titus 2:13).

Originally posted by Tim:
... Dispensationalists are pessimistic by definition.

Click to expand...

I am a dispensationalist and am not pessimistic in the least. My optimism arises from the realization that Jesus is the one who will bring restoration, not the political process or the goodness of men. We have a sure and certain hope that is not swayed by the current world scene. To me, nothing would be more discouraging than trying to find hope in a kingdom we have to usher in.

I am a dispensationalist and am not pessimistic in the least. My optimism arises from the realization that Jesus is the one who will bring restoration, not the political process or the goodness of men. We have a sure and certain hope that is not swayed by the current world scene. To me, nothing would be more discouraging than trying to find hope in a kingdom we have to usher in.

Click to expand...

Tim is refering to pessimistic in the world getting better by Christian influence BEFORE Christ returns. To qoute the dispensational who started this thread "Paul said they would get worse"!

Now, back to my hardwood floor fantacies with my 525k!

Wait a minute! There is NO social responsibility for the church? Just "missions", but guess they better not build a hospital, school, drug rehab, food pantry, etc etc

That is absurd. Of course the ministry of the church must first be sharing the Gospel. But they "will not care that we know until they know that we care".

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Could you help explain why a church, raising money for social causes, is a problem to you?

Click to expand...

I can ... Because the NT never gives the church any such mission. Being a NT church, we limit our purposes to what the NT said a NT church is and does. The social cause we raise money brings the only true solution to social problems -- Missions. When men and women come under the life dominating authority of Jesus Christ, the social problems solve themselves. </font>[/QUOTE]They solve themselves if God's agents do as He has commanded.

James 1:27, "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

James 2:15,16, "If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?"

Matyhew 10:42, "And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Wait a minute! There is NO social responsibility for the church? Just "missions", but guess they better not build a hospital, school, drug rehab, food pantry, etc etc

That is absurd. Of course the ministry of the church must first be sharing the Gospel. But they "will not care that we know until they know that we care".

Click to expand...

Absurd?? Can you show from Scripture where the church is to do this?? Can you show us where Paul started a hospital??? Maybe a drug rehab?? How about a food pantry?? If we are going to claim to be a NT church, should we not do NT things??? The absurdity may be that this concept is so revolutionary among people who claim to believe in the NT church.

Christians can and may well be involved in these types of things. But the church has no such mandate.

And don't try to paint me out like I am against those things. I certainly am not. I believe that Christianity has a better hope for drug rehab than anything else including the 12 step programs. I have no problem with a food pantry. We in fact have one. But the reality is that the NT gives the church no social mandate. Therefore, there is not one.

For that matter, neither does the Bible say a church should have Sunday School. Learning the Scriptures is a personal responsibility of the child of God, and raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is a parental responsibility. Not the church's, not the pastor, certainly not the Sunday School.

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
For that matter, neither does the Bible say a church should have Sunday School. Learning the Scriptures is a personal responsibility of the child of God, and raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is a parental responsibility. Not the church's, not the pastor, certainly not the Sunday School.

Click to expand...

Actually, the NT does teach that the church should be teaching the word. Sunday School is an abiblical issue ... that is, the Bible does not address it. It fits the NT mandate of the church and therefore is a proper (though not mandated) part of the church. That is entirely different than what is being talked about here.

DD,

Am I to conclude, based on your post, that laws against murder, theft, prostitution, etc. are just the vain antics of deluded preachers-turned-politicians?

The fact that much of U.S. Law is historically rooted in and modeled after O.T. Mosaic law is a good thing. As Paul says, "the law is good, and holy and just."

But America is not O.T. Israel. We are not a theocracy. And the church's mission is not to try and make the USA into another O.T. Israel.

As Paul also says, we are" ministers of the new testament: not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

The church is an organism of the New testament, not the Old. Our focus is giving life, not passing legislation. Transforming, not forcing conformity.

Tim

Okay, you guys have convinced me. No more food to the orphans and widows or poor. No more clothes to the poor either. No more jail visits. And certainly no visits to the nursing homes anymore, either. But by far, I'll stop payment on my check to the City Mission for Thanksgiving Dinner. Let the homeless fend for themselves. That's what Jesus would do. After all, He said the poor would always be with us.

We are only blessed so we can heap our blessings upon ourselves, never to share with those not as fortunate, and certainly never to feed the stomach as a means to feed the soul.

Oh, brother.

SheE,

Where did you get that from? I think the primary issue on this thread is Christians and legislation--isn't it?

Tim