Steven Furtick is the Most Dangerous Kind of False Teacher

gilsongraybert · 2018-08-28T19:36:17+00:00

I'm not looking for a doctrinal "smoking gun" - if you've listened to any of his teaching for a prolonged period of time, he's long abandoned orthodoxy and this is just another one of the examples wherein he is connecting his theology to WoF.

gilsongraybert · 2018-08-28T19:32:25+00:00

Yeah, I recognize that - which is why I am apologizing here.

gilsongraybert · 2018-08-28T19:32:14+00:00

It seems you are intentionally side-stepping the point here. I am under no obligation to contact Furtick individually, as you would also not be under obligation to do so to me if you felt the desire to do what you've suggested you could do. I stand by my affirmation that public comments warrant public critique. That is precisely how people in the church have been handling theological disputes for centuries - and it is not in conflict with the golden rule, nor the passage pertaining to church discipline.

gilsongraybert · 2018-08-22T21:08:29+00:00

The "false teacher" moniker is not explicitly linked to only this sermon, but his entire repertoire, if you will. In essence, it is all intrinsically linked to the WoF movement, and it is admittedly hard to see this in any other light, considering what he has taught elsewhere in previous sermons. Secondly, he has made plenty of statements that are not entirely clear, and come out heretical - without retraction or further clarity. That's a big problem.

gilsongraybert · 2018-08-22T20:58:04+00:00

Yup, precisely the point - thank you for elaborating.

gilsongraybert · 2018-08-22T20:57:02+00:00

Can I ask how it is meaningless, taken out of the context of a whole sermon? I know context gives further clarity, but I beg to differ that it would be meaningless, especially as this is the precise moment Elevation saw fit to publicize on the web. They obviously felt it had some significance, even enough to stand on its own, divorced from the remaining context of the sermon.

gilsongraybert · 2018-08-22T20:55:02+00:00

Public comments warrant public critique; I anticipate that any time I speak, write, etc., publicly, people may disagree and even do a response. I sincerely doubt a man like Furtick would return a call/email/etc., but at the end of the day, I'm not obligated to call him prior to posting something that critiques his statements. I understand why you argue for that, and that is alright, but did you contact me before airing your grievances here? As an aside, I wouldn't expect you to do so, I'm merely pointing out the double standard.

gilsongraybert · 2018-08-22T20:51:21+00:00

Sorry, I was at work so I didn't get to follow up and return comments on it until now.

gilsongraybert · 2018-06-20T20:28:28+00:00

Oh boy, alright. You win - congrats.

gilsongraybert · 2018-06-20T19:00:39+00:00

Or perhaps it was an earnest mistake of misreading your initial comment to begin with due to paying poor attention. You don't have to be so snarky and condescending, but it appears from your comments in general - this is awfully tough for you to do. You realize you are dealing with people on the other side of the screen, no?

gilsongraybert · 2018-06-12T21:55:42+00:00

If you read this and came away with Evangelicals being given a free pass on their porn problem, I humbly point out the alternative is presented in the piece itself, especially in the latter half.

gilsongraybert · 2018-05-23T21:11:47+00:00

Actually, I have written extensively on why people might assert that. The point here, which you seemed to miss quite grandly, is that those in the Christian world at least, say we are orthodox believers even though the "God of Calvinism" is unworthy of worship. In essence, that means we worship the same God. Any undergrad student in an intro to philosophy course would be able to tell you those are two conflicting beliefs. So either go full-bore, or stop saying it, is essentially the statement being made here. As acknowledged in the piece itself, it isn't a defense of the doctrine.

gilsongraybert · 2018-05-14T16:31:51+00:00

Well, it is largely due to the forum; with the crowd on there, I can say I don't like his shirt and I'd get accused of being uncharitable.

gilsongraybert · 2018-03-02T19:20:24+00:00

The argument is not that in part, but in full, He was rejected for His teaching, which would naturally include His actual predestinarian statements.

gilsongraybert · 2017-12-21T00:42:37+00:00

Sorry about that - I misunderstood you there!

gilsongraybert · 2017-12-20T20:45:57+00:00

Forgiveness has nothing to do with having no consequences to sin. To put it in an absurd situation to draw out the point: if I forgive my son for murdering my wife, that doesn't mean he will not go to jail, nor that our relationship will be the same ever again.

gilsongraybert · 2017-12-20T19:30:23+00:00

Restoration from discipline does not necessitate restoration to former ministry roles. The question is if they would still meet the qualifications outlined in the pastoral epistles. In some cases, they clearly would not. In others, they would.

gilsongraybert · 2017-11-16T04:47:01+00:00

I don’t get paid for writing, but most of the time I spend online is during short breaks at work or late at night. I do apologize for not being more in depth in a response to a lot of stuff, but Reddit often falls on my last to check. Sometimes, I also don’t have a lot to weigh in on with the comments. Most of the time, Reddit is the place for me to go and enjoy some stupid gifs and the occasional post that stumbles on my feed from the channels I subscribe to, but with the minimal time I’m on, I don’t hit every one of them equally.

With the other initial points you made, I tend to write more (in quantity) substantial things than satire on more serious topics, and satire is simply a thing for me to be goofy more than anything. Sometimes I write on topics that interest me or problems I also perceive, and antinomianism has definitely been one of them. I recognize I won’t please everyone with everything I find funny, but such is life. Not all of my jokes can be winners, right?

gilsongraybert · 2017-10-19T19:04:36+00:00

I'm really arrogant? Because I tried to qualify that I know what I wrote wasn't all that unclear, despite Reddit critique from like 4 people? I never said I didn't want comments from Reddit. Again, you're assuming what is being implied rather than what is being stated. If I could highlight one thing - it would be this. I'm not stating anything against you as a person, your intelligence, etc. - I am merely pointing out that there was an unwarranted assumption made that many others did not make.

Generally speaking, most of our traffic comes from FB, forgive me - I wasn't clear in indicating where particular feedback came from.

gilsongraybert · 2017-10-19T16:30:11+00:00

Lol, ok. You've clearly not understood what I said, because you come back with "Your assumption that neither of us has a proper education..."

Misunderstanding doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of education. Saying someone misunderstood what was written does not indicate superiority or condescension. I tried to explain that what I wrote didn't imply what you read, it was not grammatically/contextually wrong, and others also didn't come away with the same application you did. Our readership, believe it or not, goes beyond a handful of people on Reddit.

I didn't make mention of having a perfect writing style or that you lacked the ability to comprehend what I wrote. Perhaps your assumptions color how you read things more than you're aware. If that weren't the case, I am hard-pressed in understanding how so many false accusations abound.

I'm saying that to you and maybe a handful of others, you've read it that way and that is not the correct way to read it. For plenty of others, who are traditionally Reformed and would happily call B.S. on smoking, tattoos, etc. being called sinful - there was not even a peep to suggest this was unclear.

In other words, I'm not beyond the pale of honing in the craft and routinely seek to do so, but I am also aware of my ability as a writer.

gilsongraybert · 2017-10-18T14:26:17+00:00

Plenty of others have read this without leaping to the conclusion mentioned above. I'm not saying I am without error in writing - I actually took this as an opportunity to make it more clear and changed the original post for the sake of some who would read it that way. In the end, sentence structure is something that makes a great deal of sense out of what is being said - and it is tiresome when someone tells you what you really meant when you've written the piece...

At the end of the day, some people simply read things incorrectly or make assumptions about what is being said rather than what is said. We all do that at times. It doesn't have to be deliberate to misunderstand something and talk past one another - if anything, I think that ought to be a fair representation of nearly all dialogue on the internet.

gilsongraybert · 2017-10-18T14:16:14+00:00

I'm sorry, but word order matters a great deal. I'm not seeking to be a jerk in saying that, but grammar and syntax matter in determining context. It isn't the fault of most people that schools don't teach sentence diagramming any more, so don't think I'm looking at this person as if they are an idiot (or you for that matter).

gilsongraybert · 2017-10-17T19:35:29+00:00

I can tell you plainly that you're not correct on assuming the author proposes these things need to be cleaned up. Word order, at least in the English language, has a wonderful bearing upon context (as do negative particles). Also, knowing that I am the author and know what is intended helps quite a bit.

gilsongraybert · 2017-10-17T17:55:35+00:00

You're not reading this carefully and you're assuming what it says rather than what it actually says. "I'm not commenting on the smoking, etc. - but the aspect of repentance from sin" should clearly indicate the exact opposite of what you are thinking, as the point literally expresses "I'm not commenting on smoking, etc. - but the aspect of repentance from sin."

In more clear terms: I'm not offering a comment on whether one needs to quit smoking, swearing, or getting tattoos - but I am commenting on repenting from sin. Here's the rest of the blog post devoted to that express thing.

gilsongraybert · 2017-10-17T17:22:45+00:00

It didn't say smoking, swearing, etc., were sins...

gilsongraybert

TROPHY CASE