Glenn Beck, Social Justice and the church

[Martin]

OK. So why shouldn't we defend him when he says something correct? (And, for the record, you said that we shouldn't endorse him, not that we shouldn't defend him.)

==Endorse/defend, I mean the basically the same thing. As Christians we lose our focus when we openly endorse and/or defend someone who is (a) lost and who is (b) a theological heretic (in this case, a Mormon). It does not matter that we may agree with him on many social, political, or moral issues. Jesus agreed with the Pharisees on a number of theological points, but you certainly did not see Him endorsing or defending them. When we endorse and/or defend him we are sending mixed messages to him and to others. Is our main concern the Gospel or is our main concern winning a political debate? When we hold hands with someone like Beck we are not doing anyone any good. People don't need to be given the impression that we think he is a good man who has good ideas. Because, on the most important issue of all eternity, he is not and he does not.

I'm curious why Christians don't spend as much time backing "our own" such as Al Mohler (etc). Why we (generic "we") keep falling in love with a bunch of heretics (Dr. Laura in the 90s, Glenn Beck today, etc) is hard for me to understand. It is so self defeating and it is highly unBiblical.

Then perhaps you should have read the OP before you responded.

==I read the op and I am very familiar with the issues around Glenn Beck. The issue here, for me at least, is not so much Beck's political positions. The issue for me is his theological error.

I have a gut feeling, and this is just a hunch, that if Obama, Dean, or Clinton were Mormons many of those Christians who are currently ignoring Beck's Mormonism would be openly complaining about their Mormonism. Just a hunch from long, hard experience.

 

[Steven2006]

Martin, you will have to be careful, with talk like that you might be called naive around here. :laugh:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

==Endorse/defend, I mean the basically the same thing.

Then you should have used words that mean the same thing.

As Christians we lose our focus when we openly endorse and/or defend someone who is (a) lost and who is (b) a theological heretic (in this case, a Mormon).

What if our focus is to tell the truth about a political or current event?

It does not matter that we may agree with him on many social, political, or moral issues. Jesus agreed with the Pharisees on a number of theological points, but you certainly did not see Him endorsing or defending them.

Could you please give us an example of Jesus discussing politics with the Pharisees?

When we endorse and/or defend him we are sending mixed messages to him and to others. Is our main concern the Gospel or is our main concern winning a political debate?

It depends on the situation.

When we hold hands with someone like Beck we are not doing anyone any good.

I disagree. But I'm sure Jim Wallace will be happy to know that you've drunk his Kool Aide.

People don't need to be given the impression that we think he is a good man who has good ideas.

Why? He does have many good ideas and his commentary is usually right on the money.

I'm curious why Christians don't spend as much time backing "our own" such as Al Mohler

So then, you criticize me for agreeing with Glenn Beck because he's a Mormon, but then you endorse Al Mohler, who just compromised the Gospel by signing the Manhatten Declaration with a bunch of Cathoilcs? Do you think that's just a wee bit hypocritical?

It is so self defeating and it is highly unBiblical.

Why is it Unbiblical?

The issue here, for me at least, is not so much Beck's political positions. The issue for me is his theological error.

Well then, since this thread is about his political views and not his theologicial errors, I guess there's no point in continuing this line of conversation with you.

I have a gut feeling, and this is just a hunch, that if Obama, Dean, or Clinton were Mormons many of those Christians who are currently ignoring Beck's Mormonism would be openly complaining about their Mormonism. Just a hunch from long, hard experience.

Google "Mitt Romney". Many Christians supported him.

 

[Martin]

What if our focus is to tell the truth about a political or current event?

==So it is more important to tell the truth about a political event (etc) than to stand for the Gospel? Our focus, as Christians, should be converting people like Beck not trying to find ways to agree with his political statements which, btw, in 100 years will not matter to him or us. However in 100 years his rejection of the Biblical Jesus will matter to him, I can assure you of that. What is more important?

Could you please give us an example of Jesus discussing politics with the Pharisees?

==I don't believe I said anything about Jesus discussing politics with the Pharisee. What I said was, "Jesus agreed with the Pharisees on a number of theological points, but you certainly did not see Him endorsing or defending them." My point, that you clearly missed, was that agreement on somethings does not matter when there is disagreement on the most important thing (the Gospel). Holding hands with Glenn Beck and you are holding hands with a man who rejects the Biblical Jesus, the Biblical Gospel, and who (apart from repentance) will spend eternity in hell. The only way "moral heretics" like Beck and Dr. Laura can be saved is if we, the Church, stop supporting them are start being honest with them. After all, that is our main reason for remaining on this planet (Lk 24:46-47). Not politics.

I disagree. But I'm sure Jim Wallace will be happy to know that you've drunk his Kool Aide.

==Ad Hominem attack. Very interesting. I don't know, nor do I care, who "Jim Wallace" is. I am talking about putting the Gospel ahead of politics and social issues.

Why? He does have many good ideas and his commentary is usually right on the money.

==I said, "People don't need to be given the impression that we think he is a good man who has good ideas. Because, on the most important issue of all eternity, he is not and he does not." and that is your reply? Who care if some of his political/social views are good when his understanding of the truth is so horribly wrong? What is more important here? His eternal soul or his being right on a political point? What good are you doing him by supporting him in his heresy? You should pray that he finds the true Savior, the true Lord, and therefore the only true salvation. His Mormon beliefs are sending him to hell and, I can assure you, when he is there he is not going to care about his political views. What is more important?

So then, you criticize me for agreeing with Glenn Beck because he's a Mormon, but then you endorse Al Mohler, who just compromised the Gospel by signing the Manhatten Declaration with a bunch of Cathoilcs? Do you think that's just a wee bit hypocritical?

==I was not aware that Dr. Mohler signed the Manhatten Declaration. If he did, as you said, it was a terrible compromise. Also, I did not criticize you for agreeing with Glen Beck. After all, I have said that he is right on several political points. What I am wondering is why is it acceptable for Christians, who claim to believe the Word of God, to support a man who rejects the historical, Biblical Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel? If, as you say, Dr. Mohler signed the Manhatten Declaration I would put the same question to him.

Why is it Unbiblical?

==Do you really have to ask why providing support to a heretic is unBiblical?

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds" 2Jn 10-11

Glenn Beck is more than a unbeliever, he is an unbeliever who is a member of a highly unBiblical, eternally dangerous, and heretical cult. He needs the urgent prayers and witness of Christians, not support on temporary political issues..

Well then, since this thread is about his political views and not his theologicial errors, I guess there's no point in continuing this line of conversation with you.

==The issue is his theological error because that is far more important than his political positions. I'm sorry that you, and so many other Christians, cannot see that.

Google "Mitt Romney". Many Christians supported him.

==Mitt Romney is in the same position as Glenn Beck and, yes, I have criticized Christians for supporting Romney. The fact that "many Christians" supported Romney means nothing. Many "Christians" support Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and Benny Hinn, but that does not make them right.

 

[THEOLDMAN]

Beck is a fruitcake...mormon or not.

Helping the poor is mentioned over 2000 times in my KJV Bible.

You can guess what I think.

Call me a liberal....I've been called a lot worse.

 

[TC]

Beck looks nothing like a fruitcake. Giving to the poor is great, but nowhere in the Bible is the command to steal from the rich and give the loot to the poor.

 

[Robert Snow]

Beck looks nothing like a fruitcake. Giving to the poor is great, but nowhere in the Bible is the command to steal from the rich and give the loot to the poor.

Much of what the rich have they stole from the poor to begin with.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Beck is a fruitcake...mormon or not.

Helping the poor is mentioned over 2000 times in my KJV Bible.

You can guess what I think.

Call me a liberal....I've been called a lot worse.

I would be a liberal as well. The word of God is clear that the church should be helping the poor and needy who are unable to help themselves.

 

[Salty]

Beck is a fruitcake...mormon or not.

Helping the poor is mentioned over 2000 times in my KJV Bible.

You can guess what I think.

Call me a liberal....I've been called a lot worse.

One definition of a liberal is to give freely. And we should! The problem is when you freely give away MY money. Let me decide who I help. Can you honestly say that Jesus helped everyone he ever came into contact with?

If you listen to Beck - he has infrequently mentioned how he does support charity. And you might be surprised exactly how he does it - and I'm not even talking about the "tithe" he gives to his Mormon church. Make sure you have all the facts!

Let me tell you what Rush Limbaugh once said about Hillary Clinton once several years ago.

A caller was concerned (probably just complaining) that Bill and Hillary had given so little to charity (based on their just-released tax return). Rush said not to judge them too quickly, because often some folks do not claim all they give to charity as they prefer to remain anonymous. (thats right, Rush actually defended Bill and Hillary) I heard Rush say this myself - it is not second hand info.

Salty

ps, BTW I wonder how many times helping the poor is mentioned in the NIV, NKJB, NASB, ect?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

One definition of a liberal is to give freely. And we should! The problem is when you freely give away MY money. Let me decide who I help. Can you honestly say that Jesus helped everyone he ever came into contact with?

If you listen to Beck - he has infrequently mentioned how he does support charity. And you might be surprised exactly how he does it - and I'm not even talking about the "tithe" he gives to his Mormon church. Make sure you have all the facts!

Let me tell you what Rush Limbaugh once said about Hillary Clinton once several years ago.

A caller was concerned (probably just complaining) that Bill and Hillary had given so little to charity (based on their just-released tax return). Rush said not to judge them too quickly, because often some folks do not claim all they give to charity as they prefer to remain anonymous. (thats right, Rush actually defended Bill and Hillary) I heard Rush say this myself - it is not second hand info.

Salty

ps, BTW I wonder how many times helping the poor is mentioned in the NIV, NKJB, NASB, ect?

I think the NT pattern is that the church should be giving. If people followed Beck's advice our little church would be even 'more little' because we meet the needs of the poor and needy all the time. It is a regular part of our church. We preach the responsibility of the church to meet needs.

Now, if Beck was saying that you should run from a church that says it is the state's responsibility I would agree with him.

 

[RAdam]

"and who (apart from repentance) will spend eternity in hell"

So you've seen the book of life and know with certainty who is lost and hellbound? Quite presumptuous I'd say.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

==So it is more important to tell the truth about a political event (etc) than to stand for the Gospel?

Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to understand that they're not mutally exclusive.

Look the bottom line is that if you think that agreeing with Beck that tax cuts are good compromises the Gospel, then by all means, don't listen to Glenn Beck.

My point, that you clearly missed, was that agreement on somethings does not matter when there is disagreement on the most important thing (the Gospel).

The only way "moral heretics" like Beck and Dr. Laura can be saved is if we, the Church, stop supporting them are start being honest with them. After all, that is our main reason for remaining on this planet (Lk 24:46-47). Not politics.

I see. So then, by your logic, if your wife is being raped and the only person around to help her is a Mormon, what would you suggest? Would you want him to save her? Or would you rather she be raped than be helped by someone who's theology you disagree with?

Ad Hominem attack.

And a true one, too.

I said, "People don't need to be given the impression that we think he is a good man who has good ideas.

I'm sorry, but if he has good ideas, then he has good ideas, regardless of his religion. I'm not going to smear someone just because I disagree with their religion.

Because, on the most important issue of all eternity, he is not and he does not." and that is your reply?

My reply is the same as it was ever since I started this conversation with you: I agree with him on his political views. I do not agree with him on his theology.

Who care if some of his political/social views are good when his understanding of the truth is so horribly wrong?

Again, fortunately, most of us are smart enough to understand that just because someone is wrong in their religious views does not mean that they must also be wrong in their political views.

What good are you doing him by supporting him in his heresy?

Oh, so now you're resorting to falsely accusing me of supporting him in his heresy? Doesn't surprise me. You seem like the Annsni/Menagerie Keeper type.

You should pray that he finds the true Savior, the true Lord, and therefore the only true salvation.

I do. And you should repent for making false accusations.

I was not aware that Dr. Mohler signed the Manhatten Declaration.

Oh, I'm sure you weren't.

Also, I did not criticize you for agreeing with Glen Beck.

Yes, you have done so constantly throughout this thread, including accusing me of supporting his heretical religious beliefs, just because I agree with his political observations.

After all, I have said that he is right on several political points. What I am wondering is why is it acceptable for Christians, who claim to believe the Word of God, to support the political observations of a man who rejects the historical, Biblical Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel?

For the same reason Paul appealed to his Roman citizenship.

Do you really have to ask why providing support to a heretic is unBiblical?

I like this little game you keep playing of taking everything I say and rephrasing it to support your moronic and false accusations.

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds" 2Jn 10-11

I don't blame you for not quoting those two verses in context. I mean, if you did that, then everybody could see that you're misusing them for your own idiotic agenda.

Like I said, the bottom line is that if you don't like Glenn Beck, then don't listen to him, but most of us aren't idiots and understand that if someone makes a correct political observation, it does not become any less true because he is in error in another area.

Now, as the Bible instructs us not to argue with a fool according to his folly, welcome to my ignore list.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Much of what the rich have they stole from the poor to begin with.

And you came to that conclusion...how, exactly?

 

[billwald]

google robber barons

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

 

[Martin]

"and who (apart from repentance) will spend eternity in hell"

So you've seen the book of life and know with certainty who is lost and hellbound? Quite presumptuous I'd say.

==No, but I know that those who deny the Biblical Jesus are not saved.

Have evangelicals now watered the Gospel down so much that a heretic can be declared "saved"? If so, and it seems this is happening in some corners, that is very sad and very dangerous.

 

[Revmitchell]

Much of what the rich have they stole from the poor to begin with.

Your communist indoctrination is complete DarthSnow

 

[Martin]

Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to understand that they're not mutally exclusive.

==In the case of people like Glen Beck the two are mutally exclusive. When you hold hands with someone like Beck you are sending the wrong message to him and the wrong message to Mormons and other heretics. We should avoid teaming up with such people so that everyone understands the Gospel triumphs over political unity. We will not unite with those who stand against the Lord Jesus Christ.

Look the bottom line is that if you think that agreeing with Beck that tax cuts are good compromises the Gospel, then by all means, don't listen to Glenn Beck.

==I don't think I said that. I've stated, several times in this thread, that Beck has some good points. My problem is with his rejection of the historical, Biblical Jesus. It does not matter what political points I agree with him on, I cannot and will not team up with him because in doing so I would be supporting a heretic.

I see. So then, by your logic, if your wife is being raped and the only person around to help her is a Mormon, what would you suggest? Would you want him to save her? Or would you rather she be raped than be helped by someone who's theology you disagree with?

==That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read on one of these boards. And after 10+ years I have read many really stupid things, so that is saying a lot. We are talking about teaming up with a heretic on political issues. Your statement is, at best, a red herring since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, but if he has good ideas, then he has good ideas, regardless of his religion. I'm not going to smear someone just because I disagree with their religion.

==Just go ahead and say it directly. Your primary interest is politics. Would you team up with a Muslim on a political social issue? If not, why a Mormon? Personally I don't see a difference. Both reject the Gospel and both reject the historical, Biblical Jesus.

My reply is the same as it was ever since I started this conversation with you: I agree with him on his political views. I do not agree with him on his theology.

==So you believe that his personal theology, which will send him to hell, is less important than political issues? I don't believe you do. I think you are compromising with Beck because he is a high profile conservative who says things you, and I, can agree with.

Again, fortunately, most of us are smart enough to understand that just because someone is wrong in their religious views does not mean that they must also be wrong in their political views.

==I did not say he was/is wrong in his political views. What I said was, "Who care if some of his political/social views are good when his understanding of the truth is so horribly wrong?".

Oh, so now you're resorting to falsely accusing me of supporting him in his heresy? Doesn't surprise me. You seem like the Annsni/Menagerie Keeper type.

==More ad hominem attacks I see. When you hold hands with someone like Beck you give the impression that he is ok when, in fact, he is not. You may disagree with his Mormonism but your disagreement looks secondary to your support of him due to politics. What should we take from this? It is ok to support a heretic in politics as long as you disagree with his heresy? I certainly hope not.

Oh, I'm sure you weren't.

==Contrary to what you seem to think, I do not go around reading signatures on those documents. Nor do I follow everything Mohler does or says. So no, I did not know he had signed that document. And, as I said, I would say the same thing to him as I am saying to you. You should not put correct theology and the Gospel in second place to politics for any reason whatsoever. I believe I made my views about the M.D. clear on Baptistboard.

For the same reason Paul appealed to his Roman citizenship.

==I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic. I have not said that Christians should not use the law to defend themselves (etc).

I don't blame you for not quoting those two verses in context. I mean, if you did that, then everybody could see that you're misusing them for your own idiotic agenda.

==How am I misusing them? John is talking about greeting heretics. How is providing support to a Mormon different than a gnostic? What is the difference? Both are heretics.

Go ahead and ignore my points and me if you wish. However there was a time when Christians would never have provided any type of support for someone who denied the Gospel and the Biblical Jesus. What has changed is that our standards have been lowered. The down-grade is in full effect.

 

[Steven2006]

Your communist indoctrination is complete DarthSnow

LOL, that was funny!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

==In the case of people like Glen Beck the two are mutally exclusive. When you hold hands with someone like Beck you are sending the wrong message to him and the wrong message to Mormons and other heretics. We should avoid teaming up with such people so that everyone understands the Gospel triumphs over political unity. We will not unite with those who stand against the Lord Jesus Christ.

==I don't think I said that. I've stated, several times in this thread, that Beck has some good points. My problem is with his rejection of the historical, Biblical Jesus. It does not matter what political points I agree with him on, I cannot and will not team up with him because in doing so I would be supporting a heretic.

==That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read on one of these boards. And after 10+ years I have read many really stupid things, so that is saying a lot. We are talking about teaming up with a heretic on political issues. Your statement is, at best, a red herring since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

==Just go ahead and say it directly. Your primary interest is politics. Would you team up with a Muslim on a political social issue? If not, why a Mormon? Personally I don't see a difference. Both reject the Gospel and both reject the historical, Biblical Jesus.

==So you believe that his personal theology, which will send him to hell, is less important than political issues? I don't believe you do. I think you are compromising with Beck because he is a high profile conservative who says things you, and I, can agree with.

==I did not say he was/is wrong in his political views. What I said was, "Who care if some of his political/social views are good when his understanding of the truth is so horribly wrong?".

==More ad hominem attacks I see. When you hold hands with someone like Beck you give the impression that he is ok when, in fact, he is not. You may disagree with his Mormonism but your disagreement looks secondary to your support of him due to politics. What should we take from this? It is ok to support a heretic in politics as long as you disagree with his heresy? I certainly hope not.

==Contrary to what you seem to think, I do not go around reading signatures on those documents. Nor do I follow everything Mohler does or says. So no, I did not know he had signed that document. And, as I said, I would say the same thing to him as I am saying to you. You should not put correct theology and the Gospel in second place to politics for any reason whatsoever. I believe I made my views about the M.D. clear on Baptistboard.

==I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic. I have not said that Christians should not use the law to defend themselves (etc).

==How am I misusing them? John is talking about greeting heretics. How is providing support to a Mormon different than a gnostic? What is the difference? Both are heretics.

Go ahead and ignore my points and me if you wish. However there was a time when Christians would never have provided any type of support for someone who denied the Gospel and the Biblical Jesus. What has changed is that our standards have been lowered. The down-grade is in full effect.

Don't care. If you don't like him, then don't listen to him.

 

[RAdam]

==No, but I know that those who deny the Biblical Jesus are not saved.

Have evangelicals now watered the Gospel down so much that a heretic can be declared "saved"? If so, and it seems this is happening in some corners, that is very sad and very dangerous.

I'm not saying that Beck is heaven bound, but I'm also not going to say he's hell bound as if I am the authority on the subject. I haven't seen the book of life, and neither have you. Christians are too busy declaring people saved or hell bound.