one weird trick

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36795826)

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50d753ace4b00e80afab9f20/t/5a84912a8165f5ac7e86a765/1518637355028/Capture22032.JPG?format=300w

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36795879)

Date: September 12th, 2018 11:22 AM

Author: lawman8

You are not in a position to judge anything as “heretical.”

I’ve previously poasted the analysis of the respected theologian John Frame, who has listened to many Osteen sermons, finds them to be in accordance with biblical teachings, and praises how great they are.

He alone wipes out your silly argument on all fronts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36795830)

If the OP feels this way, he should just say so.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36795844)

Read John Frame

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36795893)

“Although he does urge his audience to pray for earthly advancement and prosperity, he always puts that in a context of godly motivations.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36795912)

OP is taking the dishonest position that Osteen’s message isn’t in accordance with the Bible because he said so and just ignore Frame because reasons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36795924)

If you just want the money for yourself, that’s unChristian and then the eye of the needle thing applies. But if you will help many others, that’s the “Godly motivations” Frame references.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36795980)

Unlike the people here who have Osteen Derangement Syndrome, John Frame has actually listened to many hours of Osteen’s sermons. So he actually knows what he’s talking about.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36796013)

“My only criticism is this: he preaches on only one topic. that topic of course, is subsequent blessing. That is a genuinely biblical theme, and perhaps it deserves more stress in today’s church. But there is so much more in God’s Word! If one joins Osteen’s church and trusts Osteen as his main teacher of God’s Word, he will not hear much about creation, fall, sin, incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, or glorification. He will not hear much , either, about the tragedies brought into human life by sin and by God’s curse on the ground. That would be a severe loss. Of course, Osteen’s own emphasis, on subsequent blessing, intersects with all these doctrines and gives his congregation a perspective on all of them. But he doesn’t teach these doctrines with any level of directness, and that is a mistake.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36796061)

He also says to treat his messages as a supplement and not the primary source of Biblical teachings.

Oh, what a fraud!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36796074)

Frame begins his essay by pointing to two levels of divine blessing: initial grace (or God’s initial saving grace) and subsequent blessing. He notes that Luther and Calvin were much more balanced than many of their followers. Luther, he says, “lived somewhat more in the realm of initial grace, and Calvin lived somewhat more in the area of subsequent blessing.” Frame says the evaluation of Osteen is “more complicated” than what his normal critics usually state. First, Osteen’s “preaching of blessing is presented in a salvation context–to people who are committed to Christ as Lord and Savior.” (p. 321) This means it “is a preaching of what I have called subsequent blessing, not a preaching of salvation based on works.” (p. 321) Frame says that while he disagrees with some of Osteen’s applications of Scripture he thinks that “for the most part they are true expositions of the passages he cites.” (p. 321) Is Osteen part of the “pray for a bigger house” kind of materialism? Frame urges caution here. “Although he does urge his audience to pray for earthly advancement and prosperity, he always puts that in a context of godly motivations.” (p. 321) Frame says he has been moved by one of Osteen’s sermons and that he has “found many of [his] sermons to be personally beneficial.” (p. 321)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36796111)

when i see him speak my skin crawls like when i see a huge slimey insect in a horror movie

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36796136)

Also, your reaction has nothing to do with the eye of the needle stuff, which renown theologian John Frame debunked.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4075771&forum_id=2#36796144)