All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Victoria Osteen & the response
Victoria Osteen – the “response” that shows she is a typical false teacher
by Sandy Simpson, 9/8/14
It never ceases to amaze me how people who claim to be “Christian” leaders are apparently NEVER able to admit when they are wrong. Makes you wonder if they are born again because acceptance of the Gospel will cause a person to repent of their sins which then gives them access to the forgiveness of Christ when they sin from that point on (1 John 1:9). But be that as it may, Victoria, the “co-pastor” and wife of Joel Osteen, fires back at the article in the Christian Post entitled: “Victoria Osteen Ripped for Telling Church 'Just Do Good For Your O... by claiming they lied about what she said. She claims in her statement back to them in the article called “Victoria Osteen Chides Critics: I Didn't Mean Parishioners Shouldn... that they claimed that she said a person should not worship God.
"While I admit that I could have been more articulate in my remarks, I stand by my point that when we worship God and are obedient to Him we will be better for it," she told The Blaze in a statement Friday. "I did not mean to imply that we don't worship God; that's ridiculous, and only the critics and cynics are interpreting my remarks that way." (Christian Post, “Victoria Osteen Chides Critics: I Didn't Mean Parishioners Shouldn...)
That is not what they said at all. The title of the article is very specific in their correct analysis of her “ridiculous” statement – that she stated that “worship is not for God, it is for yourself”. So she lied in her response.
But the real problems are that she claims the following in her response:
"I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we're not doing it for God—I mean, that's one way to look at it—we're doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we're happy," she said in the 36-second clip posted on YouTube, with her husband smiling at her side. "That's the thing that gives Him the greatest joy … So, I want you to know this morning: Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy," she continued. "When you come to church, when you worship Him, you're not doing it for God really. You're doing it for yourself, because that's what makes God happy. Amen?" the clip ended as congregants cheered. (Christian Post, “Victoria Osteen Chides Critics: I Didn't Mean Parishioners Shouldn...)
So she not only did not apologize for her statements and lied about how people quoted her, but she reiterated their same, tired, false Word of Faith teaching again. She states that worshipping God is not for Him but for us. Why? Because when we are happy that makes God happy. Oh really? What about the stories of Job, Stephen, Paul suffering from a “thorn”, and all the other prophets and apostles who died serving God? They were not worshipping God so they could be “happy”, they were worshipping God because of Who He is!
Victoria has also not read the Bible, which you would think would be a requirement for someone to be a head pastor of a church. The Bible is clear that the thing that brings God “joy” is our obedience.
John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command.
John 14:23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
John 14:24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
John 15:10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.
1 John 5:3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,
Love and worship for God is not predicated on how we feel or the amount of joy we have. It is predicated on obedience to Him BECAUSE HE IS GOD! Victoria also tells her audience that they need to “do good because God wants you to be happy”. We don’t do good so WE can be happy. That may be a consequence of doing good, at times, but the important thing is that, in the most difficult circumstances, we simply obey Him because we know He will be pleased with us on that basis. But our “happiness” is not the end. But it is for the Osteens. Almost every word of every message from them is the New Thought idea that we can create our own little world of happiness by simply thinking and speaking positively. I have written about this idea, which is basically Karma, in an article entitled “Karma (by any other name)”. God wants us to submit our will to His, not willfully try to create our own reality that is often not in line with His purposes.
Finally, the scary part is that the “congregants cheered” after Victoria finishes her diatribe. This reminds me of a warning from the Old Testament against heretics like the Osteens:
Jeremiah 5:31 The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end?
Someday every person who has ever been born on this earth will answer to God for their actions. You can either fool yourself into thinking you are happy because of your positive thoughts and confessions, or you can follow God and obey Him, thus proving your love for Him. Better choose correctly because “what will you do in the end?”
Views: 4107
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by RoyW on
-
David,
I may have a couple kids moving back to Kansas. If so, I at least will be close to there. I hope to see you again.
Much love to you as well my brother.
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Roy,
Thanks for replying. I don't have time this morning, but will respond later this afternoon/evening with a couple observations and comments on this topic as I believe that there are some things that need to be segregated, defined and clarified.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
Rather than attempt to address the things running through my head I have decided to start a new forum on "What is a False Teacher."
The new forum can be accessed here: http://www.allaboutgod.net/forum/topics/what-is-a-false-teacher
-
Permalink Reply by thewatchman on
-
Going to agree with LT, it's def time to move on. There are some great posts that have been started and others that might need to be, i.e. creation, etc.
I think things start to get too confusing when too many "inter-discussions" are happening.
Love you all, closing this down...and thank you for your thoughts and replies.
-
-
Eric,
You brought up the possibility of differing species of humans that may not have descended from Adam in a private message (among many other good objections to a young earth). The chronology given to us in Scripture is that the flood came 1656 years after Adam destroying all humans but eight. That is than 4500 years ago. From there, the Bible teaches us that man began to migrate over all the earth. We are being told that every person on every part of the globe has descended from the first man Adam:
Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. NIV
Did the Mayans descend from Adam, from Noah and one of his sons? In my understanding I am saying "absolutely." In your understanding, you are saying (at least that is what I think you are saying) that you are not quite for sure. Is it possible to go from eight to over seven billion people in less that these 4500 years? I think it can be accomplished very easily. Probably the reason for that is that in just my short lifetime I see the population of my family growing at a much faster rate of growth than that. I was blessed with five children. Depending on how long I am given on this earth, I could see my family grow to seventy or ninety people. My first child was born almost forty-three years ago. In those forty-three years we have gone from two of us to twenty-nine of us. We are expecting twenty-eight and twenty-nine this fall sometime. If this rate of growth continue for just over four hundred years using the rate of the exponential growth my wife and I are experiencing, just our family alone would amount to around nine to the thirteenth power which would outdo Abraham and his descendants over the same time period. If you would take that number to the 100th generation or four thousand years, you would have way over seven billion people. From eight to seven billion is only a moderate rate of increase in those four thousand years. In fact, if all my descendants are as fruitful as my wife and I, you would have over seven billion people in less than four hundred years. Now we know that is not going to happen. Whew, now everyone can take a breath of relief. There are other factors in this scenario. For one thing, there would have to be plenty of others out there for my descendants to marry. That could be a problem. There are also wars, famines, plagues, killer storms, etc., that helps to keep the world's population in check until God's complete purpose can be fulfilled for this current earth system.
I'm sure you are familiar with the term humanitarianism. The belief that man has spread over all the earth in less than 4500 years requires that the earth has not always looked exactly like it looks today. I imagine there may have been land bridges or could have even been other more extensive methods of getting the earth's population spread over all the earth.
If there is one thing we have learned from genetics, is that one species can change its appearance over a very short time. Our theories have to be not how we look so different and how did we grow to over seven billion to how do we still look so much alike and have such a small population. A flat face or broad nose is not a major difference in appearance even though it is being made much of by the evolutionists. We have to be very careful with these people. They have been known to be very racist in their thinking.
You brought up other issues that also are worth considering. This one is not one that is going to make me change my thinking.
-
-
Eric,
As I mentioned, I think in my very first comment, I am not a scientist. It is not my job to defend the young earth from a scientific perspective. I am not the one that reports a young earth. I am one that believes in a young earth because of what God's Word states. As I have mentioned before, if God had said that mankind had been around for millions of years, that is what I would believe. You are indicating that you are basing your beliefs on something other than the written Word accepting whatever these men are telling you. Now, that you have accepted that as truth, you are scrambling to justify your conflicts with what Scripture clearly says. You have no choice but to seek hidden thought that would agree with these propositions that you have stated (very good job, by the way).
I thought you were going to show us a way to interpret Scripture in a way that it would agree with these propositions you have shown. You are not doing that but resorting to attempting to show the earth is old by these (I don't want to use the word theories since most of the things you mention do not reach that level) ideas. For instance, if you could show that the American Indian goes back 16,000 years using some form of genetic proof, you would shut up all the young earthers. Also, if you could show through genetics that there are other living modern humans that have not descended from one set of parents, you would then be successful in closing virtually every Evangelical church in America. We would all have to hang our heads in shame for preaching the Gospel with Adam being the first man and death by the sin of Adam and life by our Lord Jesus. Instead you have no proof of the things you speak of. These are speculations - unrefined.
You mentioned that I said scieentists are racists. You need to reread the post. I am going to hold you to a higher standard than that. I will reply to your charge when you get it right.
Right now, what I see you doing is repeating a lot of rhetoric that will change tomorrow. Now, let's get to the important part of your comment. It is true that the word "day" can have different meanings. However, the meaning is determined by its context. Perhaps you believe in the day-age theory where those who attempt to harmonize the Bible with some modern day speculations concerning the age of our universe. This idea is that the days mentioned in Genesis one represent long periods of time. I think this might be what you believe.
What does the word "day" mean in Genesis one. In the Bible we can interpret the meaning of the words by the context of the word or sentence. The word '"day" can mean a 24 hour period, the period of daylight as contrasted to the night, a general point of time like "the day of the Lord," or an amount of time that is not that relevant to the meaning.
To my knowledge there is no use of the word "day" with a specific number or in conjunction with the term "evening and morning" where it does not mean a literal day of twenty-four hours. It is interesting and significant that God created the day before He made the world and perhaps even before He set the world in rotation. The twenty-four hour period is very important to God's plan for mankind who He made in His own image. It is obvious that God established the time of the day before He ever made man. His plan was well-developed, perfect. In Genesis one the context of the word clearly defines it. I don't see how from a biblical standpoint that you can justify your belief that the world is billions of years old. What I hear you saying is that the Bible must submit to these modern ideas and change its meanings. We must write new concordances giving new meanings to old words.
-
Permalink Reply by Seek on
-
But instead we must reach to understand why these things don't line up in the usual way.
We must? Why?
John 20:29
....blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
I think we make a mistake when we're so busy trying to figure God out.
What is wrong with mans understanding that it can't bridge the gap ?.
For starters God says we won't.
Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
And let us not forget Babel. Too much knowledge can puff one up.
-
-
If man can't bridge the gap what makes you believe you, I or anyone, could have the greatness of creation understood?
I don't seek to understand it. I only want to know the greatness of God. But you didn't like the idea that God could make an earth as old as He wanted yet LT pointed out how God destroys the wisdom of the wise. Or what about the waters that are older and flooded the earth. I'm not a scholar and honestly don't care how old the earth is since I know the Creator I know it's His creation that He can do anything He wants with and make appear however He wants. I fix my eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of my faith and He will make the truth of His creation known to me, which may be when I stand before Him as I now know only in part but will then know fully.
I don't know what you mean by the rest of this...ie: what church orders have looked at this the same way? I don't know any churches myself that waste time teaching on the age of the earth. Nor do I know what miracles you're talking about. If you've posted them and I even saw them, I have most likely forgotten them as my long term memory always needs jogged.
-
Permalink Reply by Tammy on
-
I'm gonna start another discussion on The Earth's Creation because there is a lot of information you guys have posted but it doesn't seem to go with the topic of this one.
-
-
You irritate me and although I would trust my life in your hands I don't feel free to travel with you in this way. So please unless you really want to take the gloves off and find out just how strong your brother is , back off. and let it go. I'm trying to walk away now and I have drawn a line in the sand.
Eric, it appears to me that you may have some kind of problem. I have offered that I am not a scientist but I do not believe you have what you claim to have. You believe that all that believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis have simple minds. If God had really shown man a deeper meaning, I believe He would want that person to share that. I am thinking you may be living in a fantasy world thinking you have a special revelation that the rest of us do not have. You become angry when I stick to the beliefs I have held my entire life. You use sarcasm to attempt to shame me into cowering to your demands. I am sorry but I have to say that the world you think you have found does not exist. I was interested in seeing what you purported to have. I am disappointed. I think you are watching too many Marvel movies.
I am convinced that your story of millions and millions of years with one species evolving into another species is nothing more than a fairy tale. The evidence you boast of is disputable. It is not proof but subject to interpretation. At this point in our history we have to choose which account we believe. I have chosen the biblical account and you have chosen another. You say you believe in the Bible but I don't think you really do. You are making the Bible submit to some modernists philosophy of understanding of a naturalistic explanation of how life came into existence. That is your choice. Your temperament indicates to me that you are really struggling with your decision. Again, I am sorry. I wish I could help.
So far, your vast ability to reveal things in the Bible that others cannot see is a proposition that the day in Genesis one does not really mean a literal day. You say you have so much. Let's see what you have. You have me beginning to doubt you. I can tell you that if this becomes adversarial, it will be shut down and not by me. I don't think that is necessary. You are claiming to have new revelation but seem to be saying that the only way you will share that is if I give up my belief that Genesis one is literal. That is not making a lot of sense to me.
So far, the best out there is attempting to justify an old earth in Scripture is probably a guy by the name of Dr. Hugh Ross. I have read some of his writings and listened to his explanations but I have to admit that I am just not seeing it. It is just too much of a stretch for me to take that leap.
Blessings to you, Eric. I pray you find what you are looking for.
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda on
-
There's a different light in which to view Matthew 7:21 and the rich young ruler as well, another way of looking at them. They were trusting in their works to save them, but works done without Jesus knowing someone are only filthy rags in God's eyes, nothing more than lawlessness. Many people who are spiritually dead live moral lives, even to the point of donating millions of dollars to clothe and feed the poor and needy. When people face Jesus on that day, as we read in Matthew 7, it's not going to matter how much they say Lord, Lord then, for certain, or how many works they did because they thought Jesus was a good man or a good teacher and wanted to do good things like Jesus did, in His name. Those who are truly born again are known by Jesus and know Jesus as both Lord and Savior. Why did God institute animal sacrifices for sins in the OT? God gave the moral law, the Ten Commandments, and, yet, instructed Israel in animal sacrifices. Was it because God never meant for the law to be the way of salvation for them? Why didn't God just give the moral law by itself? God gave the penalty for breaking it along with it. What is God doing? Does the new birth mean that the image of God, the image of Christ has been fully restored in mankind after the Fall? Or is the nrw birth simply the beginning of restoring the image of God in us, in what is called the ministry of reconciliation? When will that be complete in us? Are we under the law for salvation and under the penalty of the law if we are in Christ and Christ is in us? Is Obedience a condition for salvation, either to be saved and to remain saved? Or is it rather the evidence of salvation? How much evidence of salvation is required? 100 fold, 60 fold, 30 fold? Do I have 30 fold? I understand that I'm not to seek to live for Him to be saved or stay saved, but rather because I am saved and I want to live for Him (even if failure takes place at times). I also understand and believe that sinning (failure to obey all the commandments) isn't acceptable. Jesus paid a horrible penalty for my sin. But what is God doing in this journey of ours in this great salvation? Isn't God restoring the image of Christ, the image of God in fallen mankind? There's no excuse for sin. We must confess sin. Confess means to agree with God about our sin, not justify it. Repentance means a change of mind, of seeing sin and hating it and turning away from it and to God and seeking to walk in His ways and His will. Will the image of God be restored completely in anyone in this life while we remain in fallen flesh? Will we always be dependent upon Jesus and what He has done for us? Won't we be spending an eternity praising and thanking Him?
-
-
Eric,
The Word tells us three things that relate to your logic and this subject:
1) God confounds the wise:
1Co 1:19-31 NIV84 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (20) Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21) For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (22) Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, (23) but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, (24) but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (25) For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. (26) Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. (27) But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. (28) He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, (29) so that no one may boast before him. (30) It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. (31) Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
2) God created a mature, fully operating, system.
Genesis 1.
3) God created this fully operating system in 6 days. Each day of creation equals one day.
The terminology used and context leave no other option but for Scripture regarding creation to be read as meaning single days. It is interesting that using your logic we take the simple reading of Scripture and make it hard while attempting to align with man's wisdom which God says He will confound.
Lastly, if man reads Scripture as plainly written without bias he will conclude that creation was completed in 6 days. You may say that science has proven differently over the past "x" of years and that God's Word aligns with the scientific proof. The problem with that approach is that you are then saying that God deceived mankind because the simple reading of Scripture (of which is what man would have had before "x") was not true, but a deception. Now do we believe the simple reading of Scripture, which also acknowledges that God will confound the wise, or do we trust man's interpretation of physical things and seek to trump the simple reading of Scripture?
I do not expect to sway you, nor do I plan to get into a long drawn out affair over this, so reply if you like, but not necessary.
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
