Is it a sin to critique a preacher?

[rbell]

Some folk think they can read your mind.

I knew a week ago you were going to say that.

 

[John of Japan]

I knew a week ago you were going to say that.

Oh, yeah? Well, I knew you thought you knew that, but really I don't know if you really knew how much you knew! I think.

 

[rbell]

Oh, yeah? Well, I knew you thought you knew that, but really I don't know if you really knew how much you knew! I think.

I would respond, but according to Scripture, I need an interpreter.





:laugh:

 

[Dale-c]

God choose him and used his preaching style to reach all whom He choose. You might not like it nor agree with it but that is what God did. Now we (you and I) could take up a whole thread to declare what should have been said or said better. What scriptures aught to have been cited and what to leave out but the fact remains, God saw fit to use that man and his sermons for His names sake and He glorified it.

With this type of reasoning the end justifies the means.
What problem would you have with Joel Osteen? How about Benny Hinn?

But God used it mightly for his glory, and that my friend is something your just going to have to live with.

No, I think it was often used mightily for Billy's glory.
Does that mean that God never worked inspite of him? Of course I am sure that some were legitimately saved but I doubt there were anywhere near the reported numbers of true conversions.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

God choose him and used his preaching style to reach all whom He choose. You might not like it nor agree with it but that is what God did.

So a preacher cannot be speaking outside of God's will? What about preachers delivering contradictory and mutually exclusive messages?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Joel Osteen following is an example of poor souls being caught with an image and smooth speech.

Must be ok to criticize a preacher. :laugh:

 

[Allan]

With this type of reasoning the end justifies the means.
What problem would you have with Joel Osteen? How about Benny Hinn?

Really, I don't remember saying that. Oh, wait.. I didn't. I didn't even insinuate it. I stated a fact that God used him and his preaching style. Your 'ONE' sermon is not indicitive of what he typically preached, but of course you would know that if you actaully read any of his sermons. Back on your other thread it was shown that he did in fact preach the gospel message, which you would know if you took the time read up instead of bash.

I'm not against critique, but I wont stand by (and allow without dissent) bashing mascarading as critique.

As I said before, do a little more homework on him. No he wasn't the greatest preacher but he was a man used mightly of God.

No, I think it was often used mightily for Billy's glory.
Does that mean that God never worked inspite of him? Of course I am sure that some were legitimately saved but I doubt there were anywhere near the reported numbers of true conversions.

IOW - you have no idea how many were truly converted but in your personal opinion it is your assumption that it must have been just a few because.. well you have no reason.

The real stats are not in the numbers but in the lives changed, and thousands were. Sure there will always be those who were looking for the 'get out of hell free card' but scripture states they will always be there (wheat and tares).
But what you can't prove in any form is that 'it was used for Billy's glory' Such a statement is childish. You give nothing but assumptions, presumptions, and feelings about him and his ministry, while giving at best minimal if any real facts.

So far the only fact you have given is that he wasn't a great sermon writter, and that he didn't use a multitude of verses. I would even give you that he (IMO)harped on one thing over-much (hobby-horsed) but I don't know if that is what God desired of him. I just know that I doubt I would. Beyond that you haven't given anything factual outside your opinion and suspisions.

 

[Dale-c]

Must be ok to criticize a preacher.

unless the one doing to criticizing happens to disagree with the preacher on a point I agree with him on

 

[gb93433]

Somebody encouraged scruntiny.

Acts 17:11, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily [to see] whether these things were so. "

 

[Revmitchell]

When sin is preached against on a regular basis criticism is sure to follow. Your conscience must really be bothering you about this alcohol thing. You seem rather obsessed with anyone who opposes it.

 

[Salamander]

Would you ladies like some cream or sugar for your tea?

 

[MB]

When sin is preached against on a regular basis criticism is sure to follow. Your conscience must really be bothering you about this alcohol thing. You seem rather obsessed with anyone who opposes it.

That get's a big Amen
MB

 

[Palatka51]

:laugh:

I love my people in my church....
They are not afraid to ask me why I preached something...

I can tell they talk about my sermon Sunday afternoon, because there has been many occasions on Sunday night that they will ask me about why I preached something oneway, instead of another.. or what I meant....

They are not afraid to approach me with their constructive criticism...

And some Sunday nights, because of this, I have cleared up confusion that could have festered....

I don't mind being critisized for the things I have done.. or for the sermons I have preached.. I will take the heat when need be...

But I do mind being unjustly critisized, or someone take something out of context, and without asking me about it, use it against me.

Also, when Critisizing a dead preacher, remember that he can't defend himself... and since Sunday is in Heaven (I do believe) I am sure he already knows what he could have done better, and what he should not have done.


I am sure when I get up there, I will be kicking myself for some things I believed, said, and done....

Because as PERFECT as I am... I am still not completely holy....

I am trying to convince my wife that I am, but she won't fall for it!:laugh:

Very good post Tim. However does criticizing ones spelling fall under the critiquing of a Pastor?
I'm sorry I shouldn't be the one to critique ones spelling.

 

[gb93433]

When sin is preached against on a regular basis criticism is sure to follow.

More preachers are fired after preaching through the book of James.

 

[Dale-c]

So far the only fact you have given is that he wasn't a great sermon writter, and that he didn't use a multitude of verses. I would even give you that he (IMO)harped on one thing over-much (hobby-horsed) but I don't know if that is what God desired of him. I just know that I doubt I would. Beyond that you haven't given anything factual outside your opinion and suspisions.

Umm, how about saying that voting "for the saloon" which was presumably against the 18th ammendment wouldsend a man to hell?
htat is adding to the Bible and adding works to the Gospel.

Now you may find other places where he preached orthodox sermons. But do we exuse error because there person isn't always erroneous?

Do you not discipline your kids because they don't ALWAYS misbehave?

What about a shoplifter?
He may only steal 1 out of ten times he goes into a store.
So what right do we have to say that he is wrong on the one time he does?

Let's just say Sunday only added works to the gospel in one out of ten sermons.
Do we let him go?

This isn't a petty issue.
The guy added to the scripture. He ignored Scripture.
He added to the Gospel right here:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Say, if the man that drinks the whisky goes to hell, the man that votes for the saloon that sold the whisky to him will go to hell. [/FONT]

That is no small offense.
That is heresy and should be refuted.
Who cares who the man was. This is a heretical doctrine we are dealign with.
DO you agree or not?

Please stop with the ad hominem and deal with the actual subject matter.

Do you believe the quoted doctrine above is Biblical?
Do you believe it adds to the Bible?.

If not then please show me from the scripture where he is right.

 

[J.D.]

I came across a sermon the other day as many of you know. It was by Billy Sunday and had not one single scripture reference or even a mention of Christ anywhere in it.

I was accused of "tearing down a man of God" but since when are "men of God" inerrant and above scrutiny?

The most dangerous preacher out there is one who can command respect without having to backup anything with scripture.

I do not believe I resorted to ad hominem attacks anywhere in my posts. If I did, please show me and I will apologize.

But the larger problem here is the fact that so many preachers today still emulate that style of preaching.

So my question is: why is Billy Sunday above questioning?
Was he an apostle? Were his words inspired and therefore no scripture was needed?

This is not an attack against the man himself but his message.

It is a sin to critique ME or ANYTHING I SAY!



(now let's see how many think I really mean that)

 

[Revmitchell]

More preachers are fired after preaching through the book of James.

I have never heard of even one.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Fried Preacher

Why, isn't it true that most people have friend preacher .... ahhhhh, I mean fried chicken every Sunday at lunch???:laugh:

 

[Dale-c]

Why, isn't it true that most people have friend preacher .... ahhhhh, I mean fried chicken every Sunday at lunch???

There is a big difference between "friend preacher" (I think you meant fried?) And simply judging his doctrine by the scriptures.

In the case of Billy Sunday, it is really easy since in the sermon I brought up, he never even USED scripture!