Revelation and concern about Roger Oakland

[Pleye]

In several threads earlier, including this one,
"Compare these statments of faith - which one is emergent?" (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=16002) - I discussed a church I used to attend who was steeped in Warrenism and wanted advice to give to a friend.

Some people gave me info from Roger Oakland. I passed that along to my friend who passed it along to the pastor who said this about Roger:


... I often think that he pulls others quotes out of their greater context of teaching (something he often get on others for doing with the Bible).

I feel that is wrong because the same pastor said:

But I see in Christ's teaching, that he used teaching about and the context of the second coming as a springboard to address all sorts of here and now issues. I am not content with teaching about the end times that doesn't bring us back to "how now then ought we to live".

Jesus didn't teach about the second coming so you could have "your best life now."

But here's the revelation...
I met Roger Oakland many years ago at this church I've been asking you all about!

OK, so looking into this further I started browsing Roger's website. I noticed something strange in his address. He lists two addresses, one in Santa Ana, CA, and one in Eston, SK, Canada. Well, he used a PO in Eston, but seeing as how Eston is a town of 1000 people and has a large Bible college, I am sure there may be some association.

Now here is the thing. I posted the doctrinal statement of the church which contained this:

8) The baptism of the Holy Spirit as an experience subsequent to salvation, with the scriptural evidence, namely, speaking in tongues.

The Bible College and church are affiliated and share the same doctrinal statement. I was told by others on this board to stay away from this church because that statement #8 was unbiblical.

Here's the conundrum. I'm not sure of Roger's affiliation with this college, but supposing that he is for a minute, how can someone who seems to be so discerning let themselves be affiliated with an unbiblical college?

Can anyone either confirm or deny a relationship here?

[JoelH]

It is possible. I understand that a lot of end times discernment ministries are Arminian in nature. And Charismatics (belief in speaking in tongues, second Holy Spirit "baptism" etc) are Arminian in theology. David Wilkerson does believe in "end times prophets" speaking that "add to the Scriptures" at the end of Church Age. Some label Dave Hunt as Arminian in theology.

In fact in many ways, it shows how bad the paradigms of the Emergent/Emerging Church, PDL, seeker sensitive model are that even some of the fellow Arminians have to speak out against such travesties.

If you cross over to the Calvinist side, the criticism from John MacArthur or Dan Smeara are even stronger. Curiously, I know some 5-point Calvinists from another forum that actually have softer lines towards seeker sensitive methodologies because true to their belief in all-persuasive predestination, "God is all powerful and sovereignty, surely He can always work to His advantage even in bad methodologies. This is all pre-ordained"

[Emily Ruth]

It is possible. I understand that a lot of end times discernment ministries are Arminian in nature. And Charismatics (belief in speaking in tongues, second Holy Spirit "baptism" etc) are Arminian in theology. David Wilkerson does believe in "end times prophets" speaking that "add to the Scriptures" at the end of Church Age. Some label Dave Hunt as Arminian in theology.

In fact in many ways, it shows how bad the paradigms of the Emergent/Emerging Church, PDL, seeker sensitive model are that even some of the fellow Arminians have to speak out against such travesties.

If you cross over to the Calvinist side, the criticism from John MacArthur or Dan Smeara are even stronger. Curiously, I know some 5-point Calvinists from another forum that actually have softer lines towards seeker sensitive methodologies because true to their belief in all-persuasive predestination, "God is all powerful and sovereignty, surely He can always work to His advantage even in bad methodologies. This is all pre-ordained"


I really think that we do our Lord and the body of Christ a disservice to keep applying labels to one another. Arminian and Calvinism are doctrines (philosophies) of men that attempt to squeeze God into a box. They attempt to put answers on things that escape their understanding in the temporal rather than trusting God in matters that escape our full capacity to understand.

Col 2:8 8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Dave Hunt is NOT arminian in nature as he believes in OSAS. John MacArthur is NOT calvinisitic to the fullest extent of that term because there are several points where John has matured past the confines of the standard calvinistic doctrine.

So, for the sake of the whole truth rather than using man's wisdom, can we please stop applying human labels to people in the body of Christ. Please?

[Emily Ruth]

In several threads earlier, including this one,
"Compare these statments of faith - which one is emergent?" (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=16002) - I discussed a church I used to attend who was steeped in Warrenism and wanted advice to give to a friend.

Some people gave me info from Roger Oakland. I passed that along to my friend who passed it along to the pastor who said this about Roger:



I feel that is wrong because the same pastor said:



Jesus didn't teach about the second coming so you could have "your best life now."

But here's the revelation...
I met Roger Oakland many years ago at this church I've been asking you all about!

OK, so looking into this further I started browsing Roger's website. I noticed something strange in his address. He lists two addresses, one in Santa Ana, CA, and one in Eston, SK, Canada. Well, he used a PO in Eston, but seeing as how Eston is a town of 1000 people and has a large Bible college, I am sure there may be some association.

Now here is the thing. I posted the doctrinal statement of the church which contained this:



The Bible College and church are affiliated and share the same doctrinal statement. I was told by others on this board to stay away from this church because that statement #8 was unbiblical.

Here's the conundrum. I'm not sure of Roger's affiliation with this college, but supposing that he is for a minute, how can someone who seems to be so discerning let themselves be affiliated with an unbiblical college?

Can anyone either confirm or deny a relationship here?


I don't know about Roger's affiliation with that Bible college but I can tell you what I have learned about the world of apologetics - it can and often does create strange bedfellows.

I used to try to draw a definite line between people due to various beliefs.
But then I learned that people make relationships along the way and while they may split regarding doctrine - they remain friends when it is a difference of opinion on a non salvation issue. So, we will find, occasionally, a strange connection but we need to simply look at the fruit of that person.

Now, there are some lines to be drawn that are absolutely necessary. Such as if we see Roger Oakland showing us an address at Benny Hinn's mansion - then I think we have a serious question to ask him.

Otherwise - we need to look at a person's fruit rather than dissecting every detail of their lives and drawing conclusions that may not have full basis in fact.

[Guy4God]

News Flash! We are not all perfect or on the same page on any given subject...:lol2 Even the so-called "Big Guns" i.e., well known teachers, have little quirks and beliefs that not everyone agrees with. Dave Hunt is very outspoken and an excellent teacher who travels to hundreds of churches every year, but he holds some beliefs that I disagree with...He does not like any music unless it is Hymns, he believes that Christians should absolutely NOT observe, look at or wish to understand the 7 feasts of Israel as they are for Israel only, and lastly (although I agree here) he has publically stated that he cannot understand how anyone can interpret Ezek.38 & 39 as anything other than Armageddon. Obviously that is different than most think.

This goes for any of the big prophecy and Church scene teachers/pastors, et al. Everyone has something that others disagree with because that is simply the nature of the Church...even Peter and Paul had differences...Paul and Barnabas did, Paul and James sure did. It's ok as long as the essentials are agreed upon.

Roger Oakland is a great apologetics teacher for false movements in the church (I was able to see the error of the Toronto Blessing/Rodney Howard Browne from his teaching, and came out of the Vineyard church). Roger Oakland is good for Atheism, Evolution and occultic apologetics. He may, or may not hold the believe about tongues being evident of salvation (I have never heard him say, nor have I seen him write any such thing, personally). On the whole it doesn't really matter because he doesn't teach it everyday or try to work it into every book or message that he brings.

[Pleye]

I know my memory is bad for not recognizing the name sooner, but when I met Roger I was able to tell him that my salvation was in part prodded on by his work with a book he wrote on Creation. So there is a good fruit right there.

But at the same time, although I like Roger from what I can remember of his work (book still on my shelf), I have to wonder possibly about the discernment of some people here. Maybe it is better than mine, but I'm thrown into a bit of a logical problem here.

I asked a question a while ago. I said, the church that I'm trying to help my friend out with is steeped in Warrenism. This is the church who is affiliated with the same college as Roger. My friend says they pick and choose what they use of Warren, which looks to me like pretty much everything he has written.

When asking the question, is that wise to do the general response was "forget Warren and everything he teaches. We can't pick and choose what we want to hear." Which I have to admit, is what I would personally do and I consider wise.

However, now we are faced with the same problem (potentially, if my assumption was right). If Roger Oakland does affiliate with an organization whose doctrinal statement is unbiblical, how can we just pick and choose what we like from his teachings when we just said we can't do that with Warren.

Wouldn't that be considered relativism? Picking the teachers that we like because they say what we want to hear? Applying different yardsticks to measure with.

[A Berean]

I know my memory is bad for not recognizing the name sooner, but when I met Roger I was able to tell him that my salvation was in part prodded on by his work with a book he wrote on Creation. So there is a good fruit right there.

But at the same time, although I like Roger from what I can remember of his work (book still on my shelf), I have to wonder possibly about the discernment of some people here. Maybe it is better than mine, but I'm thrown into a bit of a logical problem here.

I asked a question a while ago. I said, the church that I'm trying to help my friend out with is steeped in Warrenism. This is the church who is affiliated with the same college as Roger. My friend says they pick and choose what they use of Warren, which looks to me like pretty much everything he has written.

When asking the question, is that wise to do the general response was "forget Warren and everything he teaches. We can't pick and choose what we want to hear." Which I have to admit, is what I would personally do and I consider wise.

However, now we are faced with the same problem (potentially, if my assumption was right). If Roger Oakland does affiliate with an organization whose doctrinal statement is unbiblical, how can we just pick and choose what we like from his teachings when we just said we can't do that with Warren.

Wouldn't that be considered relativism? Picking the teachers that we like because they say what we want to hear? Applying different yardsticks to measure with.

Go to www.understandthetimes.org- Roger's website, and ASK him in an email if he is affiliated with this college. He will reply, and I'm sure he will be totally honest about it.:)

[Sing4Him]

Roger Oakland

Roger Oakland is the founder of Understand the Times International, a ministry dedicated to building up the faith of Christians and challenging the unsaved. A former biology teacher who adopted and taught the foundational beliefs of evolution, he is now a zealous promoter/defender of biblical creation. Roger Oakland has authored and co-authored numerous books and produced audiotapes, videos, and other publications that have been translated into several different languages worldwide. Over the past twenty years he has lectured at churches, conferences, universities, and educational facilities in over 40 countries with much of his time spent in the former Soviet Union. The scientific topics he presents are incorporated into a biblical worldview consistent with the past, with an understanding of the present, and insight into the future. The goal of Oakland's ministry is twofold: 1) to strengthen the faith of believers and, 2) to challenge evolutionists about the deception in which they believe. His easy-to-understand teaching style communicates to people of all ages and backgrounds. Oakland's classes are always centered on the validity of Scripture with an emphasis on the importance of Christians being active in their faith by communicating this same message to others.


Roger Oakland is a former biology teacher and fervent evolutionist who in time, after a long struggle with faith and personal tragedy, surrendered his life to Jesus Christ. His conversion is recounted in the book, "Let There Be Light," written by Oakland and Dan Wooding. Oakland currently heads Understand the Times, International - an international ministry dedicated to monitoring the news from a Biblical perspective and exposing apostasy in the churches of the world. He travels globally as a lecturer and evangelist, including recent efforts to bring the Gospel to the predominantly-Buddhist and impoverished nation of Myanmar. He is also a widely-published author.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2171707/bio

[Sing4Him]

I wrote Deborah at LighthouseTrails and asked her for more information about Roger Oakland.
She knows him personally. I received permission from her to post her response to me regarding Roger Oakland:



I assure you, Roger does not take quotes out of context. We confirmed every quote in Faith Undone and found them all to be accurate and within context of the source. The documentation stands on its own and is solid.



Secondly, there is nothing strange about Roger’s two homes, as the writer suggests - he does have two homes. He is originally from Sask. His still existing son (one died three years ago and one many years ago) farms and lives there, and Roger works on that farm too. His main ministry headquarters is in Southern California. He knew the founders of the Bible college in Eston very well but as to now, he has confronted and continues to speak up to the college professors and leadership because the college is heading toward contemplative and emergent.



As to the charismatic movement, Roger addresses the hyper-charismatic movement on his site – one can see clearly where he stands on this and other issues.



Deborah Dombrowski

Lighthouse Trails Publishing

www.lighthousetrails.com

[Emily Ruth]

Excellent Sing! I am pleased to see the direction you took this and the response is as we would expect regarding the fine man of Roger Oakland.