One final "New York minute" on Joel's swing through town ... CBS's Hannah Storm - who conducted the interview of Joel on the Early Show - blogs a few additional thoughts.
Thanks for posting the link to Hannah Storms additional comments. Within the few brief paragraphs, Hannah wrote:
"Although he has taken some heat for his relentlessly optimistic messages of hope, Osteen has been steadfast in his core belief that all of us, in every religion, are children of God and as such, we deserve happiness and peace."
I have a few questions:
1) Do you believe this quote to be an accurate assessment of Pastor Joel's core belief (what he teaches) or has Hannah just mistakenly asserted such?
2) Does the Bible allow for all, those in "every religion," to be classified as "children of God" who "deserve" happiness and peace?
I'd love to get feedback on this, because I don't understand how the aforementioned assertion could possibly be true. How can everyone "in every religion" be classified as a "child" of God when the Apostle John tells us that only believers, those who "receive" Jesus, are "children" of God:
"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..." John 1:11-12
This text explicitly states that those who "believed" received "the right" from God, to become His children -- to be called by that name. And Paul says in Ephesians 3:26:
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."
These two simple texts alone, prove that not "all" are children of God. And not "all" deserve the benefits of Christians without coming into Christ's fold. Confessing faith in Him alone. Isn't the biblical message more in line with the idea that our sins deserve judgment or justice "the wages of sin is death," and yet through God's grace escape from the consequences of our own sin is offered to us? I'm bothered by such a statement that asserts everyone to be a child of God, deserving "peace" and "happiness," because it appears to blur Biblical distinctions between belief and non-belief. Am I missing something here?