ECT Lucado's CHRISTMAS CANDLE reviewed

[Interplanner]

Any British period movie lover will enjoy this, with many of the usuals on stage. Shannon Boyle, too, with a singing role. A British friend was at my Thanksgiving dinner table last night and praised British casting for 'not having the most beautiful of people'; she got her wish, too.

It concludes powerfully as Lucado usually does, and it is multiple as their are some 10 stories strung along. In the opening third, I found it a bit experimental on the question: how much miracle needs to happen today. It's a bit odd to have that put to the general public as it does, when most of the general public has either never read Hebrews 1--2:4 or, once read, asks 'is anything in print more confusing?'

In the end, both the tradition-keepers who insist that once ever 25 years a miracle candle produces a miracle in the 19th century village of Gladbury, and the reverend's precise theological training that 'yes, there were miracles through Christ, but that was back then'--both of these come up short. By the way, the view that modern technology takes the place of miracles (of healing, providing, etc) also takes a hit in the story. The miracle of finding love after lost love or abandoned love also shines through, and without gender confusion. The mind is unfortunately inclined to control what and how a miracle will take place, and must let go of that control.

 

[Interplanner]

I thought a cessationist would have something to say here.

 

[Danoh]

I thought a cessationist would have something to say here.

Philippians 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Rom. 14:5; 5:6-8.

 

[Interplanner]

Philippians 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Rom. 14:5; 5:6-8.

OK...so both the tradition keepers and the pastor were right in their objections to each other? Or was the pastor right when he said there should be dozens of miracles? Or was it just his own realization that he was stuck in an 'if only' slot about his past family and finally got out of it?

The pretence of Phil 1 is not that another Christ/gospel was preached but only that the correct one was preached mischeviously--to cause Paul further harm--by people who did not subscribe.

 

[Danoh]

OK...so both the tradition keepers and the pastor were right in their objections to each other? Or was the pastor right when he said there should be dozens of miracles? Or was it just his own realization that he was stuck in an 'if only' slot about his past family and finally got out of it?

The pretence of Phil 1 is not that another Christ/gospel was preached but only that the correct one was preached mischeviously--to cause Paul further harm--by people who did not subscribe.

Yep.

That has always been my understanding of that passage as well.

But that was not why I posted it as my reponse to what you posted, bro.

Rather, I posted it to you out of a sense of that higher level of abstraction that Paul had obviously said that from, to begin with - that had allowed him to make that lemonade, out of the lemons someone had obviously meant to hurl his away, intent on hurting his ministry efforts through a false pretence.

My point was not what Paul said there, but the higher operating principle he was obviously operating from as his perspective, that had allowed him to turn turn those lemons into lemonade, to begin with.

Philippians 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

My point was not what he said, but what he had chosen to focus on - that THE SUBJECT OF CHRIST was nevertheless being presented.

I often reflect on that when observing all the bickering ever going on between various individuals on here - all asserting they ALONE are "preaching Christ."

I have long looked at all that absolute nonsense from a kind of "nevertheless, His Name is being put out there - whether in pretence or in truth, in the sense that Paul had meant that, or whether out of a sound understanding or not - nevertheless, His Name is being put forth - the more astute will look into Him and His doctrine - no matter who is asserting what - and the fool never will...' - so what's to fuss about?

I keep telling you I hold, not to MAD, but to A MAD...MORE OR LESS

Nevertheless, Rom. 14:5 towards you, in memory of Romans 5:6-8 in each our stead.

 

[Interplanner]

Yep.

That has always been my understanding of that passage as well.

But that was not why I posted it as my reponse to what you posted, bro.

Rather, I posted it to you out of a sense of that higher level of abstraction that Paul had obviously said that from, to begin with - that had allowed him to make that lemonade, out of the lemons someone had obviously meant to hurl his away, intent on hurting his ministry efforts through a false pretence.

My point was not what Paul said there, but the higher operating principle he was obviously operating from as his perspective, that had allowed him to turn turn those lemons into lemonade, to begin with.

Philippians 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

My point was not what he said, but what he had chosen to focus on - that THE SUBJECT OF CHRIST was nevertheless being presented.

I often reflect on that when observing all the bickering ever going on between various individuals on here - all asserting they ALONE are "preaching Christ."

I have long looked at all that absolute nonsense from a kind of "nevertheless, His Name is being put out there - whether in pretence or in truth, in the sense that Paul had meant that, or whether out of a sound understanding or not - nevertheless, His Name is being put forth - the more astute will look into Him and His doctrine - no matter who is asserting what - and the fool never will...' - so what's to fuss about?

I keep telling you I hold, not to MAD, but to A MAD...MORE OR LESS

Nevertheless, Rom. 14:5 towards you, in memory of Romans 5:6-8 in each our stead.

Have you seen the movie or read Lucado's story?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yep.

That has always been my understanding of that passage as well.

But that was not why I posted it as my reponse to what you posted, bro.

Rather, I posted it to you out of a sense of that higher level of abstraction that Paul had obviously said that from, to begin with - that had allowed him to make that lemonade, out of the lemons someone had obviously meant to hurl his away, intent on hurting his ministry efforts through a false pretence.

My point was not what Paul said there, but the higher operating principle he was obviously operating from as his perspective, that had allowed him to turn turn those lemons into lemonade, to begin with.

Philippians 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

My point was not what he said, but what he had chosen to focus on - that THE SUBJECT OF CHRIST was nevertheless being presented.

I often reflect on that when observing all the bickering ever going on between various individuals on here - all asserting they ALONE are "preaching Christ."

I have long looked at all that absolute nonsense from a kind of "nevertheless, His Name is being put out there - whether in pretence or in truth, in the sense that Paul had meant that, or whether out of a sound understanding or not - nevertheless, His Name is being put forth - the more astute will look into Him and His doctrine - no matter who is asserting what - and the fool never will...' - so what's to fuss about?

I keep telling you I hold, not to MAD, but to A MAD...MORE OR LESS

Nevertheless, Rom. 14:5 towards you, in memory of Romans 5:6-8 in each our stead.

Good job on getting off of IP's ignore. :up:

 

[Interplanner]

Good job on getting off of IP's ignore. :up:

When you stop abusing Acts 2:30,31, and 13:32+, and 15:14, and Mt 24:15, I'll look into. When you stop holding the entire method of the NT's use of the OT hostage because of one line about a Prince of a Covenant in Dan 11 NOT quoted among the 2500 uses of the OT by the NT, I'll think about it. Otherwise, I can't imagine why I would.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

When you stop abusing Acts 2:30,31, and 13:32+, and 15:14, and Mt 24:15, I'll look into. When you stop holding the entire method of the NT's use of the OT hostage because of one line about a Prince of a Covenant in Dan 11 NOT quoted among the 2500 uses of the OT by the NT, I'll think about it. Otherwise, I can't imagine why I would.

I was complimenting Danoh on getting out of the doghouse with you.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

When you stop abusing Acts 2:30,31, and 13:32+, and 15:14, and Mt 24:15, I'll look into. When you stop holding the entire method of the NT's use of the OT hostage because of one line about a Prince of a Covenant in Dan 11 NOT quoted among the 2500 uses of the OT by the NT, I'll think about it. Otherwise, I can't imagine why I would.

Who was the "Brash anti Messiah"?

 

[john w]

Here is all I need to know about this "thread," and Max Lucado:

Max Lucado (born January 11, 1955) is a best-selling Christian author and writer and preacher at Oak Hills Church (formerly the Oak Hills Church of Christ) in San Antonio, Texas.

Translation: Giving time/credence to a water baptismal generation proponent, i.e., a perverter of the gospel of Christ?

No-"Sorry about that, Max."


EOT.DOA.RIP. QED. CLOSED. NO ENTRY.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Here is all I need to know about this "thread," and Max Lucado:

Max Lucado (born January 11, 1955) is a best-selling Christian author and writer and preacher at Oak Hills Church (formerly the Oak Hills Church of Christ) in San Antonio, Texas.

Translation: Giving time/credence to a water baptismal generation proponent, i.e., a perverter of the gospel of Christ?

No-"Sorry about that, Max."


EOT.DOA.RIP. QED. CLOSED. NO ENTRY.

At least Lucado isn't a 2P2P wackjob, right saint john?

 

[Right Divider]

Who was the "Brash anti Messiah"?

You still have to wonder why Mr. GrammarScholarHistorian continues to use the false premise that any OT not mentioned in the "NT" is automatically cancelled.

It seems to be his only premise to "understand" the whole Bible.

I guess that once the "fiction writer bug" bites you, you've been totally consumed.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You still have to wonder why Mr. GrammarScholarHistorian continues to use the false premise that any OT not mentioned in the "NT" is automatically cancelled.

It seems to be his only premise to "understand" the whole Bible.

I guess that once the "fiction writer bug" bites you, you've been totally consumed.

It's one of the reasons he's so confused. He needs to believe ALL 66 books.

 

[john w]

At least Lucado isn't a 2P2P wackjob, right saint john?

Yes siree, Mayor-and not a fracturization zealot.

And remember, fellow MAD wacko's-the days of literalism are over.

 

[Danoh]

Have you seen the movie or read Lucado's story?

Check out a sample of the following...

Beware Of Max Lucado's False Gospel...

There are numerous problems with Max Lucado's plan of salvation as you just read:

Lucado never mentions the DEATH, BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ. 1st Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the Gospel as Christ's death, burial and resurrection three days later. This is the good news that brings salvation if you receive it as payment for your sins.

In Max Lucado's sinner's prayer, the Gospel is not mentioned. My friend, faith in Jesus is not the Gospel. Salvation is not a sinner's prayer. The Gospel is not making a commitment to Christ, nor is it forsaking the world nor amending one's ways. Ye must be born again! (John 3:5)

Max Lucado says “NO STOWAWAYS PERMITTED,” which he explains by saying, “Christ followers go public with their belief.”

This is a false Gospel. Lucado is ADDING requirements to salvation that the Bible does not add.

There is no mandate in the Scriptures to confess Christ before others to be saved. The Bible says that many of the chief rulers and people believed on Him, but secretly for fear of the Jews (John 12:42). Joseph of Arimathaea was a secret Christian for fear of the Jews (John 19:38).

Confession is NOT a requirement for salvation.

Max Lucado is a false prophet!!! Peter was scared and denied Christ, cursing the name of Jesus and then he quit the ministry.

Max Lucado has an incorrect understanding of what it means to repent. Mr. Lucado errantly teaches that repentance is “turning from bad behavior to good.” That's not what repentance concerning salvation means.

Mark 1:15, “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”

The word “repent” in Mark 1:15 is the Greek word metanoeo and means “to think differently.”

Hence, Biblical repentance is to think differently and believe the Gospel.

Repentance is a change of mind, not a change of life. The object of repenting is believing the Gospel, not changing one's lifestyle.

Max Lucado says to be saved “we stop following our passions and salute our new captain.” This again is a false understanding of what it means to repent.

Lucado says to be saved “we publickly demonstrate our devotion (baptism).” Church Of Christ require water baptism for salvation. Max Lucado says that water baptism is not required for salvation in his statement of faith, but then writes his books like it is required. Max Lucado says no stowaways are permitted and then he lists all the requirements to be a legitimate passenger. Max Lucado is teaching self-righteousness and a false plan of salvation...

https://www.soulwinning.info/wolves/max_lucado.htm

And no, that writer is clearly not Mid-Acts.

But he does have the basic gist that is 1 Cor. 15:1-4, right.

Nuff said.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Interplanner]

Check out a sample of the following...



And no, that writer is clearly not Mid-Acts.

But he does have the basic gist that is 1 Cor. 15:1-4, right.

Nuff said.

Rom. 5:6-8.

Regardless, people still have questions about how much miracle needs to happen today. If you have any thoughts about that or if the story changed your thoughts about that, let me know.

 

[Danoh]

Regardless, people still have questions about how much miracle needs to happen today. If you have any thoughts about that or if the story changed your thoughts about that, let me know.

That was why I cited that passage in my first post to you on this thread - not for what Paul was saying but for the principle he was obviously basing what he said on.

I suspect the more astute within Lucado's audience will go beyond what was or was not asserted (and regardless of whether it was in pretence or in truth, and also: even if sound or not) to their own "searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" Acts 17:11.

My point had been that in that much, I can, and do...rejoice.

You yourself have often asserted on here that you yourself started off in what you now assert is error.

But start and go from there (to where you now are that you assert is sound) you did.

Anyway, what is your position on why or why not miracles today?

Mine own is 100% Cessasionist - God now only working in, and this side of "that which is perfect" - His completed, or Word filled full, 1 Cor. 13: 8-10; Col.1: 9 in light of Col. 1:25,26; in short: 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

Nevertheless, Rom. 14:5 towards ya, IP; in memory of Rom. 5:6-8 in both our stead.

 

[Danoh]

Here is the movie Interplanner is talking about...

The Christmas Candle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiISAjFwUyA&app=desktop

Rom. 14:5; 5:6-8.

 

[Interplanner]

That was why I cited that passage in my first post to you on this thread - not for what Paul was saying but for the principle he was obviously basing what he said on.

I suspect the more astute within Lucado's audience will go beyond what was or was not asserted (and regardless of whether it was in pretence or in truth, and also: even if sound or not) to their own "searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" Acts 17:11.

My point had been that in that much, I can, and do...rejoice.

You yourself have often asserted on here that you yourself started off in what you now assert is error.

But start and go from there (to where you now are that you assert is sound) you did.

Anyway, what is your position on why or why not miracles today?

Mine own is 100% Cessasionist - God now only working in, and this side of "that which is perfect" - His completed, or Word filled full, 1 Cor. 13: 8-10; Col.1: 9 in light of Col. 1:25,26; in short: 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

Nevertheless, Rom. 14:5 towards ya, IP; in memory of Rom. 5:6-8 in both our stead.

I think I'm cessationist about signs for Israel, but for Gentiles/regions beyond/centuries beyond--I don't know why not--why wouldn't God take some individuals through the same tracks as found in the Gospels or Acts? Church history is full of this.

A man in remote India came to the conclusion that the plethora of gods there was totally confusing. He went into a city to find out about beliefs other than Buddhism. On one street, he noticed up ahead that a Christian church was directly across from a Buddhist temple, and a dog came toward him. He had this 'sense' that the dog was not there to attack but to befriend and guide. He followed the dog. When the dog got to the two buildings across from each other, he and the man saw that there was a small statuette of Buddha by the entrance of the temple. The dog went over and peed on it. Then he went to the front door of the Christian church and lay down relaxed. The man went in and told them his problem with all the gods and then told them about the dog. They went out to find the dog, but he was never see again. Or someone else saw him pee on the statuette and killed him.