Comments for Jared Moore

Comment on Sherwood Baptist Movies: About the Gospel or Pragmatism? by Billy Ramsdell

Billy Ramsdell — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:54:29 +0000

I think the fact that you are giving time and attention to this public ally, that enough people have seen it to make $34m, thus thinking about Jesus, fatherhood, integrity, church, friendship, accountability and a plethora of other topics raised in the movie means a certain level of success was reached. The main examples of being a Christian father set by the two strongest men was clearly articulated as the result of a relationship with Christ. There were also many non-verbal and verbal highlights of the depravity of man and need of a savior. Context put the men inside a relationship with Christ, setting put them into a church family…all theatrical methods of communication more powerful than most Sunday sermons that lack passion, revelation or conviction….. with that being said, it was way less pragmatic than one might think after first glance. Few of us are even qualified to give movie reviews, if measuring their true impact and intentions…..the only, non technical criticism I would have would be the cheesy baptist setting, which represents and relates to a much smaller population than we might think….

Comment on Stan Toler’s Practical Guide for Pastoral Ministry: An Honest Review by Somie

Somie — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:47:38 +0000

Dear Brother/Sister,

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ.

I am Somie, from Pakistan. Urdu and Punjabi are the biggest languages of this country. I visited your website ( http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/) and impressed by your work. I have one suggestion regarding booklets, sermon, tracks, and Bible studies and recording, it would be good, if these will be available in our native languages in Urdu and Punjabi. Reaching out to the people in their own languages is very helpful, affective and fruitful. If your ministry is interested and keen to reach the unreached and untold in Pakistan with the materials in native languages, I can arrange to translate for messages, bible studies, biblical tracks, books and also Urdu page on your ministry website. Our all services will be provided with reasonable rates and whatever we get we use it to spread the word of God.

Would please to hear from you,

With prayers,
Somie
Pakistan

Comment on Sherwood Baptist Movies: About the Gospel or Pragmatism? by Jared Moore

Jared Moore — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:41:47 +0000

John, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this movie after you watch it. I’m sure it’s a great movie that’s excellently done, but I wonder if the gospel is explicit in it? I’m actually fine if it’s not present, but I fear that many churches will simply show the film without adding the gospel to it. If the purpose of the movie isn’t ultimately what Jesus accomplished, but our holiness in response to His work, and His redemptive work is merely implied, then undiscerning churches may simply show this film without any gospel message whatsoever. This will leave undiscerning watchers believing that they can be a better father if they just apply the pragmatic principles found in Scripture.

There is a book that accompanies the movie which probably includes the gospel message. I hope that if churches don’t use the book that they’ll at least add the gospel to the movie if they choose to show it in their churches.

Comment on Sherwood Baptist Movies: About the Gospel or Pragmatism? by John Gardner

John Gardner — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:49:23 +0000

I can’t say too much, having not yet seen the film, but I have been very critical of the pragmatism in Sherwood’s previous productions. That said, I also agree with Andy Crouch that “it’s better to create something worth criticizing than to criticize and create nothing”.

My curiosity was also piqued by a conversation with Trevin Wax when he spoke in Cookeville several months ago. He said he had seen a screening of the movie (at the time it had not yet been released in theaters) and felt it was a vast improvement artistically and theologically over their previous projects. I’ve since heard several people say the same thing, but I’ve been waiting for the DVD release to check it out. I hope to do so soon and may weigh in again after that!

Comment on The Evangelical Resurgence of Calvinism: 5 Reasons Why I’m “Worried” by Justin

Justin — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:25:53 +0000

Calvinsim is a set of teachings that looks for scritpural support in order to become doctrines. That is exactly the wrong way to read the Bible. The bible is read and the teachings of the Bible determine the doctrines. The conclusions reached by hypercalvinsim are similar in nature to that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have a set of beliefs and look in the word to try to find support for it. Calvanism did NOT exist is the patristic church, it did not exist in the apostolic church, it came about as a result of one man’s musings. Scripture has to be taken out of context of the original greek and hebrew languages in order to get to the beliefs of TULIP. Ephesisans for instance, the US, We, Our refers to the church not individuals. It is always through Christ that election or predestination is done not by selection of individuals for salvation. Its not cool to put doctrine above Scripture. That is exactly what Calvinism does. Its beliefs are right and it, again like the modern cults, claims exclusivity to the truth. A sure sign of a false teaching. This does not mean there are many truths just that the bible teaches both election and free will. It does not teach the exclusivity of either. Because one is not openly calvinist does not make them automatically arminean. It means they disagree with calvinism. I disagree with calvinism and think it is a cancer that needs to be wiped out. When scripture is studied and the original language looked upon the beliefs of limited atonement, election and others do not find support. Inerrancy of the Scriptures is paramount. John 3:16 cannot be true if Calvinism is correct. Whosoever means, all-without qualification-no exclusions, in the greek. This cannot be correct if God only chose a few to be saved. Then scripture becomes flawed. Doctrine CANNOT contradict Scripture if it does throw it out. If the first church didnt believe it, then its a safe bet you shouldnt either.

Comment on Sherwood Baptist Movies: About the Gospel or Pragmatism? by Matt Bailey

Matt Bailey — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:49:25 +0000

I haven’t seen the films, but with all the filth that Hollywood spews out, I wouldn’t be too hard on this guy.

Comment on 11 Reasons Why ALL Remarriage After Divorce is PROHIBITED As Long As Both Spouses are Alive by Daniel R Jennings

Daniel R Jennings — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 05:16:03 +0000

This is all very interesting. I grew up hearing and graduated from Bible college being taught that adultery justified a person in divorcing and remarrying but as the years went by this interpretation seemed to make less and less sense to me when all of the Biblical evidence was taken into consideration. I recently completed a study of this issue to detail my journey of growing more conservative in this issue and placed it online at http://www.danielrjennings.org.....sion_1.pdf
The basic conclusion that I came to was that whatever Mt 19:9 was talking about, it was referring to something that happened before the wedding (fornication), not something that happened afterwards.

Comment on 5 Reasons Why I’m NOT a Reformed Charismatic by wesley

wesley — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:53:44 +0000

Hello….I am new to this post. I am not as learned as some but how is it that a person reads the whole of scripture and concludes that the miraculous gifts have ceased? I see how you can logically deduct that since you never hear of that person with the gift of healing that you would agree with the teachers who tell you they ceased. But using scripture alone, where is this indicated? This belief that the gifts were ONLY for the validation of the gospel preachers of biblical times completely snubbs the fact that Jesus had compassion them that were healed. I agree Jesus referenced the gifts validating HIS diety but is there any difference between the indwelling holy spirit in the body of the elect and the spirit Jesus was indwelled by? Logically it would follow(in my mind) that the God who had compassion on the lame and sick then would still have that same reaction toward the sick now. This rings especially true of those whom were healed in the OT who NEVER had any gospel preached to them. Also, during Jesus earthly ministry, He was completely unknown to those not in the Middle East, so if the gifts were solely for gospel validation, would not that lean towards a present role with the unreached people groups of the nations? Having done missions in Africa, the miraculous has been not an everyday thing but far from none existent. Especially in the gift of tongues given in a native language. I am of the reformed tradition when it comes to the gospel, but I cannot say that I understand how that this type of logic is consistent with the person of God. If you do not believe that your prayers can invoke a sovereign intervention from God, then I might ask you why it is that you pray anyways? I understand why we worship, HE is worthy, but to think that God wouldn’t give a man the gift of healing to validate a gospel presentation in a unknown land is very unconsistent with anything I read in the gospels. (3) What gospel did Abram hear that he believed and it was accounted unto him as righteousness? Who preached it to him? Is God unable to knock men off their horses and blind them to get his point across anymore? Will HE not speak through a false prophets ass to get his point across? I think in all of our studying theology we might have become too narrow in our understanding of God’s omnipotence. If you preach to me the God of the bible who ALWAYS used a man to speak supernaturally to the nations by word or act, and then in the same breathe say that He don’t use men that way anymore because we have a complete revelation in the bible, I would have to ask…what verse? better yet what two verses? Sorry if I sound intense or angry, I’m not, but it almost seems like an assault on the character of God. If the gifts were only for the apostles, then salvation only effected those who had it preached to them by the apostles.

Comment on What if the NASCAR Preacher Had Sung the National Anthem Irreverently? by Todd Alderson

Todd Alderson — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:14:21 +0000

Jared – I did read the entire article – a number of times. And I’m sure you think my statements are unfounded. I get that you are questioning his (Nelms’) trampling of Jesus underfoot. I’m questioning your judgment of this (i.e. his prayer) as being 1) something which ‘tramples upon Jesus’ and 2) something which is irreverent. The point I am making is, in part, that we need to take great care in what we believe or label as that which is offensive/irreverent to God. The point of the quote I offered points to the reality of the God who is revealed to us in Christ as standing on the side of a broken and lost humanity and is often quite juxtaposed to that which ‘appears’ as the things which we might call holy/sacred/reverent.
I have also read the account of Christ cleansing the temple. He did not simply do so due to irreverence, as you put forward, but rather (as biblical scholarship suggests) a way of symbolically stopping the sacrificial process and bringing the entire system under judgment. The entirety of the context from Mark 11 through 13 is all about the temple and its destruction. (And what about Jesus referring to the Pharisees as hypocrites? We can go back and forth between exegesis and interpretation until Jesus comes.)
We are likely not going to agree on these points, Jared. However, I hear and share your concern regarding reverence to God. It just appears that we differ on what it looks like. May God give us the grace and discernment to know and follow him faithfully.

Comment on What if the NASCAR Preacher Had Sung the National Anthem Irreverently? by Jared Moore

Jared Moore — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:24:20 +0000

Todd, this question that I asked, “…is it not worse to trample our only Savior and God underfoot than to trample men and women underfoot…?” dealt with trampling on our soldiers and those who have died for this country by singing the Pledge of Allegiance irreverently. Did you read the entire article? I didn’t trample this pastor underfoot. I questioned his trampling of Jesus underfoot.

Concerning irreverence, have you read where Christ cleansed the temple due to irreverence? What about where Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites? I think your statements are unfounded.