Saturday, August 30, 2008

PASTOR JOEL HUNTER: "OBAMA WAS TECHNICALLY RIGHT, THE BIBLE DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY TELL US WHEN LIFE BEGINS - IT'S RATHER IMPRECISE"

CAN ANYONE SPELL... PANDERING?

One must wonder when Pastor Joel Hunter actually began to drink the postmodern, Obama Kool-aid on human rights and his deficient view of the authority and veracity of Scripture for all matters of life and godliness? (BTW, Hunter's unbiblical assertion quoted above is something Pastor Rick Warren has never said nor would he ever affirm.)


35 comments:

Deb_B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deb_B said...

Pandering? It's much worse than even that.

Pastor? I pity his flock.

"The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe. Many seek the face of a ruler, but it is from the Lord that a man gets justice." [Proverbs 29:25-6]

Don P said...

I am always saddened when I hear "blind guides" such as this altering or mis-representing God's word. I always go back to what my first pastor says- if the Bible can be proven false in one point, it is altogether untrustworthy. Biblical scholars have held that life begins at the moment of conception for only around 2000 years. For any "pastor" to try to distort that is denial of the truth of the Bible.

Rick Frueh said...

Life begins at conception.

Sometimes its difficult to know when intelligence begins. :)

Stan McCullars said...

Rick Frueh,
Sometimes its difficult to know when intelligence begins. :)

Classic.

Cany said...

Well, sorry, but I happen to agree with him. It is not specifically mentioned.

Terry Rayburn said...

1. Hunter is obviously pandering, because, if you notice, he didn't even represent Obama accurately.

Obama didn't even answer the question, let alone "technically". He dodged the question.

Therefore Hunter can't say that Obama is "technically correct", because Obama didn't say anything except that he didn't know.

Hunter merely took the opportunity to cloud the issue of when life begins.

Then he closed with saying that it really doesn't matter if you have a pro-life President, because he says that abortions have not gone down (this is not even factually correct, as Reed points out).

But Hunter no doubt thinks he accomplished his purpose of diminishing the importance of a pro-life President.

2. Hunter did accomplish something probably very important to him, with his pro-Islam, pro-Hindu, pro-Buddhist, pro-Mormon, pro-Jehovah's Witness, pro-Wicca prayer at the Convention:

He made himself famous.

Lord have mercy.

3. I'm with Alan Keyes. When he was running for President several years ago, I saw him walking through, I believe, a hardware store in New Hampshire.

A reporter asked him, "Ambassador Keyes...is it true that you believe life begins at conception?"

Keyes said, "No, I don't believe that."

I gasped. "What?!!," I thought.

Then Keyes added something like, "Jeremiah 1:5 says 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.' The Bible teaches that my life began BEFORE conception, in the mind of God. Conception just brings it into the physical, which is why I'm against abortion at any stage."

Technicality-Shmechnicality, that's pretty good preaching for a politician.

Blessings,
Terry

The Spokesman said...

(BTW, Hunter's unbiblical assertion quoted above is something Pastor Rick Warren has never said nor would he ever affirm.)

Fair enough Steve but Warren's ecumenical efforts are still nonetheless just as unbiblical as those of Hunter and his worldview is still moralist and not biblical. Rick Warren wants to bring both government and religion(s) together to "solve the worlds problems" and that can never be established as a biblical worldview but utter and total disobedience to the Word of God.

Grace and peace,
Olan

P.S. I'm still patiently waiting for your biblical and logical response on the "faith forum."

Kuya Kevin said...

I'm just glad McCain chose a prolife VP.

http://kuyakevin.blogspot.com/search/label/Abortion

Rick Frueh said...

Ronald Reagan, in his book "Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation", said it best. He noted that since there was disagreement within the scientific community, we should err on the side of life.

Even in secular logic that makes sense.

SJ Camp said...

Olan
This thread is about Hunter and this prayer; not Warren's efforts mentioned on other threads.

Stay focused and keep on topic...

I think you did agree that Warren would never pray such a benign prayer as this one. And I do appreciate that.

kuya keving
McCain made a great choice. In addition to being prolife, she is also a Christian. I know now where her strong family and integrity resolve for justice and service within the political arena comes from.

If only some of that unshakable conviction would rub off on some evangelical leaders in their public prayer offerings at these gatherings.

Rick
Great thought by Reagan. I agree. Even the most ardent secularist would have to acknowledge that wisdom.

I wonder why Hunter didn't include the unborn in his prayer?

In His Sovereign grace,
Steve

SJ Camp said...

Terry
Well said my brother! Thank you.

A few other verses: Psalm 139:13-15: "13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me,when as yet there was none of them.


Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Matthew 1:16-25 "18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed [6] to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,
25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."


I wonder when Hunter believes the Bible teaches that Jesus' life within Mary's womb began?

SJ Camp said...

cany
Well, sorry, but I happen to agree with him. It is not specifically mentioned.

See verses in above comment.

If you don't believe the Bible teaches life begins at conception, when do you think it does begin and on what authority do you base that upon?

Thank you,
Steve

The Spokesman said...

SJ CAMP: Olan
This thread is about Hunter and this prayer; not Warren's efforts mentioned on other threads.

Stay focused and keep on topic...



Steve,

One question (at this particular time): why then the parenthetical statement about Warren?

Grace and peace,
Olan

P.S. I'm still patiently waiting for your biblical and logical response on the "faith forum."

SJ Camp said...

Olan
As to the parenthetical statement of Warren?

As you can plainly see, the context of the remarks being discussed by FOXNEWS and Pastor Hunter were made by both Obama and McCain were taken from the video of the Saddleback forum hosted by Rick Warren. Thus, the appropriateness of the comparison is logical within that context.

Do you have any comments to offer on the actual post or video clip itself? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.

VIVIT,
Steve

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

Dr. Hunter and men like him are traitors to the truth, they make a mockery of the word of God by their desire to be pleasing in the sight of men. We need to take note of such men and warn others of their teaching, lest they be lead down the same destructive path.
I find it interesting that the interview that has spawned this most recent debate was produced by a man that has been equally duplicitous and pandered to those who would deny Christ. He had some of the most outspoken enemies of Christ speak from his pulpit, and he justified it by saying that he thought that if he could bring together parties with opposing views then there would be a solution that could be reached somewhere in the middle. Now if that is not pandering to the system of the world I do not know what is!

Derek Joseph said...

Steve, that is a wonderful, Scripture-laden defense of the Scriptural teaching that life begins at conception. Thanks.

Dave Algie said...

Hi Steve. I hope you are feeling a lot better.

Thanks for posting those Bible verses to support that life begins at conception.

I have pondered on them a bit and have a few questions I wonder if you or other COT posters could answer for me.

Firstly, as the word "conceive" as we know it today- the moment of the fertilization of the egg- is based on a modern scientific understanding the ancient world did not have, does the original word in the ancient Hebrew and Greek mean the same thing? I have read that you are proficient in some of the languages of the Bible, Steve, and wonder if you could shine a light on this subject.

Secondly, you use Psalm 139 often to support that life begins as conception, as the line "you knitted me together in my mother's womb" seems to indicate. However, I have often wondered if this is more poetic than literal as it is closely follwed by the line where the Psalmist states he was made "in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth". Does this context make the earlier line poetic rather than literal? And if not, what did the Psalmist mean by being woven together in the depths of the Earth?

Finally for now, I was very interested in Terry's story about Alan Keyes and his use of Jeremiah 1:5. I've looked the verse up up and Terry seems to be spot on. The verse declares God has a plan for us BEFORE conception. Is the Roman Catholic church right then, that contraception is also intefering with God's plan and should we be decrying it as much as we decry abortion?

Thanks, as always for providing this forum to discuss such crucial issues.

gigantor1231 said...

Y'all

What is the last word with regards to the conception of life? If one says that they do not know, nor are they willing to discern when the beginning of life is then they must always defer to the author of life, who has known us before the foundation of the world. So, any tampering with life in determining it's outcome, primarily to bring it harm rather than benefit, is a most heinous sin!

Abortion is the penultimate sin of pride and selfishness. To think that we humans have any right to choose to take a life prior to it's birth is just plain and simple evil. The thing is that those that claim they are ignorant of this fact are the most guilty of all! People know when life begins, it is not a time, it transcends that because it begins with the Creator in Christ!

Rick Frueh said...

"What is the last word with regards to the conception of life?"

It will always be a matter of faith and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Let us be clear, abortion is in and of itself a denial of the Creator, but the answer is the gospel. I would never have been convinced by argument and science, and I would still be pro-choice if God had not saved me.

Praise Him.

SJ Camp said...

On the issue of when does life begin... it begins at conception. That is not only the opinion of sound medical opinion, theological conviction, but practical wisdom as well. No one questions as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg that life has begun to unfold. The abortionist only questions as what stage of that life can I "appropriately" end it.

If life does not begin at conception, then why the push for condoms to avoid teenage pregnancy? Why even bother taking the pill?

Listen, the only issue for the abortionist is what point in time in that young life of an unborn CHILD will ones conscience allow them to end it and still live with themselves? Remember something historically on the abortion rights issue: the proabortionist couldn't win the day on the them of killing of unborn children, they could only make their case on the issue of freedom of choice - not on life.

So it is quite disingenuous to think that the life of the baby is key to any pro-abortion candidate and the legislation or political suasion they would govern from. Convenience of death is more important to them the right to life.

I.e. - Don't forget Obama's now famous words: "if one of my daughters makes a mistake, I don't want her penalized with a baby."

There has never been a question as to when life begins; in our day the only lingering question seems to be when life should end.

I am not a one issue voter. BUT - this issue is so profound that to consider supporting any candidate that is for the slaughter of millions of unborn CHILDREN is beyond the pale of sound reasoning to me. And again, don't forget that Obama isn't just for abortion; he is for partial birth abortion; he is for late third term abortion; AND he is for live abortion.

To echo Rick Warren's brilliant follow up biblical worldview question to him at the faith forum: "when have you ever voted to save the life of an unborn child?"

Obama's answer? Crickets.

Strong Tower said...

"No one questions as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg that life has begun to unfold."

Obama did lie in his non-answer. He said that not even science gives us the answer. That is false. In my thesis work I reviewed dozens of science texts. All, without exception presented the human life cycle as beginning with conception. Science follows logic and the two are never without one another. The question then resolves to sophistry. In the end, what Obama was presenting was a denial of known science and the embracing of folk religion, i.e. fairies in the cabbage patch theology. The oppostitional view, that is the Theistic view, dovetails with both science and logic.

The question of God somehow infusing the soul post conception, I think was answered well by Campi. How does one explain the humanity of Christ, soul and body, and his diety if the "thing conceived" was not the holy one of Israel, the man who was like Mose? When Scripture tells us that it was indeed Jesus and not just waiting to be Jesus who was conceived then we have a whole doctrine of the incarnation. But, if we put the soul of Christ not being in Him from the beginning of his body, then the body of Christ as a holy thing is disjointed, being not holy, then holy. Then the atonement, is not that he suffered in body and soul as the sinless Lamb of God without spot or blemish who suffered in body and soul as the Holy One, but a mere spiritual substitute without concrete expression in the flesh. Though we may think of the body and soul as distinct, such was not the intention of creation. We are intended to be a unity in diversity. Such will be the case when what became the unnatural separation in the fall becomes the glorfied unity once again and that eternally. Since the Scripture does not make a discrete distinction between the body and soul of Christ in conception and he being the man holy in both body and soul, even if we bring in the view that the first Adam was made a body and then the soul infused, which is a temporal imposition on the text that does not necessarily inhere in it, we have the conceptus formed at conception in natual reproduction physically in an instant, unlike Adam, yet at the point of conception, the "then God breathed and he became a living soul" does not require a temporal separation, but can be logically so in explanation, yet simultaneous in effect. In effect, is the "breathing in" differentiated from the forming, or is it merely the expression of the instantaneity? If we look at the conception of Eve, there is no temporal breathing into her. Simply, she was made.

Though Warren did not challenge Obama at the time, not being the appropiate setting, he has been remiss in not addressing Obama's false science and fakery. O is a Harvard law grad familiar with forensic debate and evidentiary discovery? Yeah, right! In short Warren has in silence endorsed Obama's statement when he should not let it stand and should challenge not just his professed knowledge but his honesty, also. At the same time, major evangelicals should be vociferously opposing Obama's irrational or dishonest views. Except for the internet, who has broached the major media?

Debbie said...

Another very sad post to watch. Pastor Hunter said his position is that life begins at conception but understands Sen. Obama’s position of ambiguity because the Bible isn’t specific?! I guess that I would then ask him how he has come to his held position if he feels that Scripture doesn’t speak to this with clarity. Then again, after listening to his prayer the other night, there seems to be more than a pattern of “whatever works for you” in his worldview. I think the comments so far on this thread have made it abundantly clear what Scripture has to say to this.

When my daughter left for a mission trip this summer, I told her not to be afraid of letting her heart be broken by all that she experienced and saw. I should do the same. These past few posts have indeed been heartbreaking but very needful so that we can pray with even more specificity and urgency. The Church is in need of prayer as urgently as is this election. Thank you for keeping these issues in front of us, Steve.

Stan McCullars said...

In my latest post, Can Christians support abortion?, I quoted Bonhoeffer on abortion:

Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.

A great many motives may lead to an action of this kind; indeed in cases where it is an act of despair, performed in circumstances of extreme human or economic destitution and misery, the guilt may often lie rather with the community than with the individual. Precisely in this connection money may conceal many a wanton deed, while the poor man's more reluctant lapse may far more easily be disclosed. All these considerations must no doubt have a quite decisive influence on our personal and pastoral attitude towards the person concerned, but they cannot in any way alter the fact of murder.


How's that for clear communication?!

Deb_B said...

Stan
"How's that for clear communication?!"

Crystal clear, thank you.

gigantor1231 said...

Stan

"All these considerations must no doubt have a quite decisive influence on our personal and pastoral attitude towards the person concerned, but they cannot in any way alter the fact of murder."

That is very clear. While we have compassion for the condition and situation of those that have done this there is no way around the fact that abortion is a heinous evil. It is also a part of God's judgment on a nation that denies His existence and forsakes the knowledge of His truth. He then turns us over to our own desires, our own wicked ways and like brute beasts we destroy ourselves. What an indictment against man!
In the O.T. it would not surprise me if they had a equivalent to abortion, but the only thing that I can think of is when those that had abandoned the one and only true God for some idol, allowed there children to pass through the fire of some brazen altar. It was a tradition as this happened that they would drowned out the screams of the dieing infant with their own revelry and shouting, with the pounding of drums and the clashing of cymbals. Here today we justify it by calling a new life a penalty for our mistakes. Obama; 'I would not want my daughter penalized with a baby.' What a sick thing to say but from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. I am certain that this is a true picture of what He believes, I have a feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg and we have not been able to fully appreciate the full magnitude of Obama's true beliefs.

Stan McCullars said...

Deb_B and gigantor1231,

It's amazing how something as crystal clear as murdering babies can be celebrated by not only Obama-Biden and the Democratic Party, but by some professing "Christians" as well.

Anyone who hates a fellow believer is a murderer, and you know that no murderers have eternal life in them. (1 John 3:15)

I am certain that this is a true picture of what He believes, I have a feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg and we have not been able to fully appreciate the full magnitude of Obama's true beliefs.

Further down the iceberg is Obamacide which is beyond morally reprehensible if that is possible.

Deb_B said...

Stan,
"It's amazing how something as crystal clear as murdering babies can be celebrated by not only Obama-Biden and the Democratic Party, but by some professing "Christians" as well."

For such who profess to Christianity, I have but a pair of simple questions. Neither question requires anything more than a simple yes or no.

Is or is not the life of an unborn human child contained in the fertilized egg in its mother's womb?

A: Yes, of course.

Is there any way to deliberately do away with the fertilized egg in its mother's womb without concurrently and deliberately murdering the human child contained therein?

A: No, of course not.

Okay, then. If pro-murderers - who euphemistically substitute "pro-choicers" cause it sounds SO much better than "I heartily condone murder of helpless innocents" at worst, or, at best, "I choose to avert my eyes whilst others choose to murder helpless innocents". - just, please, call it what it is and do away with the pretty-isms euphemistically substituted in lieu of pro-murder.

Just admit what it is you intend to condone and quit applying euphemistic pleasantries to the willful slaughter of innocent little babies.

Methinks me 'n you 'n G-man are in agreement on this point, Stan.

Stan McCullars said...

Deb_B,
You will get no argument from me.

gigantor1231 said...

Deb_b

I'm there! Murder is Murder, it may be circumstantial but it is still what it is.

P.R.E.Z. said...

Well.

I'm just curious what in Jeremiah 1:5 he doesn't get. That text clearly lays out in plain translated English that life starts when God thinks of you, before we're even formed in the womb. So, theologically, conception is the second step in the process of human life and therefore has already begun. So Obama needs to read his Bible a tad more.

As far as from a scientific perspective, again, he's talking out of the side of his neck.

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

One of many.

What it appeared to be in this video was a pastor desperately trying not to be offensive. The problem with that is that truth and lie will always offend one another by virtue of what they are. There is no fence riding.

We have to choose what side we'll stand on. Mr. Hunter, by not choosing definitively, is standing for nothing and may be falling for anything.

lisa Conway said...

Latest Update on this Topic: Northland Church held a "Town Hall Meeting" on 9/20/08, where it was announced the week before that Joel Hunter would answer any questions that the congregation might have. In light of his recent political involvement with the DNC, there has been much flap in both our church and the community at large. My question, which I had typed up and ready to go, involved this very question about life beginning at conception, and what compelled him to offer a defense on behalf of Barack Obama's non-answer at the Saddleback debate. I wanted Joel Hunter to explain his position before his congregation, as it was very troubling to me. At the start of the said "Town Hall Meeting", Joel Hunter states that he will NOT be answering any questions of a political nature until after the election. (Code for "I have a job offer from Barack Obama - so, yes, I did pander and compromise the truth of the Bible on national tv"! How is that for hypocrisy? He can go on a national news program, misstate Biblical truth, and then have the nerve to not answer the concerns of his congregation. I have attended Northland (16 years) and am a member, but no longer will I call Joel Hunter my pastor. He has caved in to opportunism, which is so heartbreaking, because God has done some wonderful work through Joel and in Northland Church!!

deborah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
exnorthlander said...

i watched the video and i could not believe joel hunter is leading Christians with these views. the bible does not say when life begins? what kind of Christian is joel hunter? what will the elders of northland do about this? find a new senior pastor!

deborah said...

I, too, used to attend Northland. I left that church because the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is not exalted but rather, the name of Joel Hunter. If you study his sermons available at the church’s audio archives, 16 minutes into the sermon Joel Hunter is still telling anecdotes about himself and what he is up to. I also caught him lying through his teeth in the sanctuary for entertainment purposes. He told a story he claimed happened to him that weekend. It was so outrageous that I googled the details and it turns out that he took it out of a database of anecdotes to make sermons more entertaining. Imagine lying inside the church in front of God and to the congregation!

Also, I am sad that the 42 million dollar building wastes the resources and sucks up the livelihood of its congregants especially during these hard times. It would have been easier and less costly to use webstream worship but no, people have to listen to him all over FL and the world! If I am not mistaken, it costs an extra million dollars to set-up each site. Whatever happened to sending missionaries and planting churches. This kind of technology only reaches the rich of the world – what about the lost and poor who don’t have computer access? When we lose sight of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is so easy to be overcome by this world and become power hungry. That church was never bible based and people are not encouraged to read and study their bibles…because if they did they might find out the truth about Joel Hunter’s agenda. It is so sad that man succumbs to the prince of this world so easily.

21:52


Posted to PASTOR JOEL HUNTER: "OBAMA WAS TECHNICALLY RIGHT, ...
Delete Comment Cancel