Why?

There is much talk about the recent death of a man that has been labeled as a wonderful preacher. He has been ushered into Heaven by just about everyone that mentions his name. I recently wrote a post about how all of mankind seem to be happy to judge the eternal condition of ones soul once that person dies and without fail the judgement handed out is the entry into heaven. 

It does not matter if the deceased person is a rock star, preacher, or devil worshiper, they are given a free pass into heaven. Such is the case with the recent passing of an iconic preacher whose name is a household word in America. 

It would seem that he is the go-to person for all things 'Christian'. It is not my way to name names on here although I don't mind handing out enough details for the majority of readers to figure out who I am referring to. 

While I care about the eternal home of this man's soul, I also find myself thinking that he would have had to have a major change in beliefs...a regenerating...born again kind of change to find himself in heaven. But even as I say that I can't help think that I shouldn't say such a thing because this man did profess a faith in Christ and who am I to even speculate on when or where the right faith in Christ is? But...this man did not believe Christ was the only way into heaven, he 'made friends' with various religions and 'saved' millions, ushering them into 'salvation' by way of preachers/teachers/leaders from whatever belief this person had before attending one of his mass services.

I can't say I know much about this man or his beliefs. I never attended his programs, never read his books, never watched him on television. To be honest I never cared all that much for him even before I held to the Reformed faith. Probably 20+ years ago I owned a book written by his wife. It sat on my shelf until I gave it away. I can't even remember how I came by it but I do remember that I never read it.

Even now I find myself thinking more of the death of a reformed preacher than I do of this so-called 'Christian' and his death, not because one is any more important than the other, although if one is elect and the other reprobate than the Lord does care more for one than the other. Both of these men left this earthly life behind in the last few months. I, personally, was not fond of either one. I found the reformed man to be greedy and the other to be spreading a faith I do not share.

IF I were going to be bothered about either one of these men's teachings, it would be the reformed preacher because he appeared to be mixing the love of money with the true gospel. It can't be both ways. Scripture says man will either love God or money but not both. The Reformed preacher seemed to be loving both.

It's not my intent to write about that Reformed preacher today. I am sure that subject should be tackled. Someone needs to point out that begging money from your followers is not a good image for someone claiming to follow Christ. Even more so, it should be noted that Christ and His disciples gave the gospel away for free but the Reformed preachers of our time need millions to do the very same thing.

Why?

Who is it that they are loving? Who or what is most important to these Reformed men that wallow in money and beg for more under the guise of sharing the gospel when Scripture says, 'freely you received, freely you should give'.

Yet, the reformed preachers today do not seem able to do that anymore than the popular preacher who recently left this earth and his earthly legacy behind. The difference seems to be that when a popular, much loved preacher dies there is great fanfare from the masses proclaiming him to be in heaven, even the president of the United States spoke about his death. While the passing of the Reformed preacher made waves in the Reformed circles but those waves were only tiny ripples in the huge pond of our country.

A man that basically stated all roads lead to heaven so long as you are 'sincere' on those roads is mourned deeply. The man that preached Christ alone is hardly missed. Again, I am not a fan of the Reformed preacher that passed away but there is no denying that he preached  Christ while the other  man preached popularity.

I can't help thinking of this man's popularity in a country that claims to be Christian but despises true Scripture.

When I first met my husband he informed me that he would not be welcomed in the 'church' I attended at the time. I knew that my 'church' had welcomed practicing pagans, self professing witches, and others so I seriously doubted that my husband would not be welcome. I asked the preacher if he would be welcome and was told he would be welcome to attend but would not be welcome to teach. I found that humorous in a way because at the time their Bible study teacher was a man asking people if it were possible there were people created for the purpose of going to hell, a man that believed in predestination. I did not tell the preacher that.

The thing is that if a person holds to the Reformed faith they were not welcome to teach classes in a nondenominational 'church'. Even among 'Christians' that faith is ridiculed and scorned. Yet the masses embrace a man whose teachings on 'Christ' are wishy washy and embrace all manner of religious beliefs. He was in cahoots with Roman Catholicism. He said AIDS was a judgement from God only to retract that statement when the masses complained.

All people make mistakes. Even the most studious Christian can inadvertently make a false statement. There is nothing wrong with issuing an apology to any that may have heard that mistaken comment. The problem comes in when someone claiming to be Christian is preaching and teaching hundreds of thousands, or millions, and those accidents happen more than once or when other signs are present that that person is not adhering to Scripture.

Is a man that brings Roman Catholicism into his teachings of Christ a born again believer? And more importantly why is he lauded as being the person to follow? Scripture says that the world will hate Christians yet this so-called 'Christian' was loved by the world.

I can't honestly say I have anything against the man. He was no different than any other false teacher, no different than 99.9% of preachers in America. He gave the same basic message people can hear in just about every 'church' every Sunday morning.

What made this man different?

Nothing but his popularity. He drew crowds like musicians draw fans. Concert halls and venues are packed to capacity when a star comes to town. This man packed audiences in the same way. He was no different than those musicians coming to town to spread their message of music to any fan that will listen. The only thing is that his message was a bit different. Instead of screaming lyrics into microphones he screamed Jesus.

Anywhere that Jesus' name is used the possibility of salvation is there. Just yesterday I saw people debating this man on a reformed site. One woman, supposedly a born again believer, told how her mother was genuinely 'saved' at one of his programs. And maybe she was. Who am I to say one way or the other?

I just don't understand why there's such an outcry by those in the Reformed circles over this preacher and his supposed 'Christianity' when the same people never said a word about the Reformed preachers demanding of money and support for his ministry.

Oh, I understand that one man 'led people astray' with his heresy but in my opinion the other was so much worse. A lost man leading around a bunch of other lost men can't really do them any more harm than they are doing themselves but if a man that knows where he is and where he should be going leads men, whether lost or 'found', in a way that shows them paths that are not right...is that not so much worse?

If a lost man teaches what he knows out of his own condition...wrong though his teaching may be...are those teachings so horrible as to result in the outcry from those that are regenerate when those same regenerate people did not call a fellow believer to task for his begging and demanding of money? Which wrong is the real wrong? Which one is the worse offense?

If a lost man goes on being lost and leading people along the same past, perpetuating their lost state...the lost people are all in the same boat. A blind man leads other blind men. The masses flocked to hear this preacher preach things of 'Christ', they walked the aisles to their 'salvation', they gloried in this man's wonder, loved him, embraced him and they did so to their own detriment. No different than the people that send hundred dollar bills to televangelists to 'plant a seed' or whatever it is that money is supposed to do when it's plain to see for anyone with the least bit of common sense that these people are hucksters swindling unsuspecting people out of their money.

In a similar fashion this popular 'Christian' man hocked his wares, peddling 'Jesus', swindling people out of their salvation. He led masses of people to the cliff of destruction and if he didn't personally push them over the edge he stood back while his religious advisers shoved them off. And what was the landing at the bottom of the cliff? Nothing short of an eternity in hell.

He was wrong.

He was a false teacher.

He was a lost man leading other lost people. But that lost man preached the name of 'Jesus' and spread at least some miniscule speck of the gospel and he might just have been the instrument the Lord used to save a handful of the elect.

I am not saying we shouldn't point out that his brand of 'Christianity' was wrong. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been taken to task for what he was doing. He should have been. He should have been called out long before he died. There should have been an outcry against his mass meetings every single time he held one. Now that he's dead there should be, and there is, an outcrying of Christians refuting his 'Christianity' and his position in heaven.

Again, I am not personally opposed to this man or his business. He was no different than the heretical preachers in every pulpit across the country. He counted success in numbers, be it money, souls, or attendees. In doing so he made 'Jesus' a household name and popularized 'Christianity'.

As I said before, I personally have less problems with a lost person preaching a 'Christ' that isn't of the Scriptures than I do a Reformed preacher leading masses of people, raking in millions of dollars, and begging for more money. At least the lost have the distinction of being lost. Even when they preach of 'Christ' and lead millions astray, they are still lost. In their own sins they are peddling the 'Christ' they understand, pushing the 'salvation' they know onto others. Whatever a lost persons motive is for evangelizing so many others they are still...lost. They are unregenerate.

Whether they teach and preach a false gospel out of intent or ignorance their own condition is that of a lost soul and so therefore should not be condemned too harshly for what they are doing. They should be corrected in life, yes. They should be pointed out as the false teacher, as the heretic, they were, certainly, but they are still...lost. Unregenerate. Possibly reprobate.

There is an excuse for them.

There is no excuse for a reformed Christian giving the true gospel but leading millions astray through their own greed. What kind of example does a reformed preacher set when he leads by way of begging money from people while his 'ministry' is worth millions?

Paul was the greatest evangelist....greatest teacher...greatest preacher...that ever walked the earth following Christ and he was able to do it without begging money off of others. Why then is it necessary for our modern reformed preachers to do what Paul did not? Why do we overlook the way reformed preachers peddle Christ, growing rich off of others, applauding them in death and speaking of what a great teacher and preacher he was and then bemoan the horrors of a lost man leading many astray through his preaching?

Which is the worse evil? Which is the greater wrong? For a lost man to lead other lost souls to an eternity they were already facing or for a man that understands the Scriptures to defy them and lead other Christians through that defiance.

Why not cry foul before every last reformed preacher that makes hundreds of thousands...millions...off the Gospel that Christ gave us for free? Why not take them to task while they live and bemoan their failings after they die?

A person that leads through ignorance or lack of knowledge is still leading the wrong way but at least there is an excuse for them.

What excuse does every reformed preacher, leading a group of people from a pulpit or couch cushion, have when they understand the Scriptures but choose to misapply the ones about preaching and teaching or about loving money? They may profess with their mouths one thing but their actions show another.

And where is the outcry against the reformed Christians that peddle Christ every day? Why take a lost man to task after his death when they overlook the men that are supposed to be true Christians failings?

Why?